Sitting of 22 April 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  DEATH OF QUEEN ELIZABETH THE QUEEN MOTHER
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported to the House that its Address of 3rd April had been presented to Her Majesty; and that Her Majesty had been pleased to receive the same very graciously and had given the following Answer:
  I thank you most sincerely for your expression of sympathy in the great loss which I have sustained by the death of my dear mother, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.
  I am greatly moved by your comments about my mother and by your sincere condolences. These are a source of comfort to my family and to me at this time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Police Reform
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on police reforms from Police Federation members in North Yorkshire. [47060]
    Mr. Robert Syms: What recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Police Federation on the reform of the police service. [47063]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): While individual members of the North Yorkshire force have made representations and attended the meetings organised specifically for that purpose, there has been no recorded approach from the North Yorkshire branch of the Police Federation. We have, of course, been in constant contact with the federation and in negotiation with it through our officials on the Police Negotiating Board. There have been a number of specific meetings with the chairman of the federation. Last Wednesday's Budget has given us a facility not only to intervene more effectively in terms of street crime, but to assist forces in the development and delivery of the modernisation process.
    Miss McIntosh: While I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply, can I share with him the dismay of the North Yorkshire Police Federation about his trying to impose changes in pay and conditions on its members without proper negotiation? I assure him that the police reforms are dear to the heart of the North Yorkshire Police

    3
    Federation, which would like to work with him. Will he give me an assurance that he will negotiate with it and reach an accommodation and settlement?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am enthused to learn that the North Yorkshire Police Federation, which has not been in formal contact, is enthusiastic about the reform agenda. We are all enthusiastic about that agenda on behalf of the public, who want an improved, effective and less variable service. I refute entirely the allegation that there have been no negotiations. There were negotiations with the federation until 27 December. Heads of terms were signed and a consultation was then undertaken by the federation as the trade union for members of the work force who fall within the relevant salary category. Following that consultation, the rejection was made, and three further conciliation meetings were held subsequently. At the end of this week there will be a fourth such meeting, in which I hope that we can reach agreement.
    Mr. Syms: There is real anger among Dorset police officers that the Government want to turn them into centralised form fillers rather than local crime fighters. Will the Government think again about the centralising aspects of the reforms?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am slightly mystified, as we have no intention of centralising the operation of police on the beat in the community. In fact, it was we, at the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, who undertook the "Diary of a Police Officer" survey. It was we who revealed that 43 per cent. of the time was spent in the station and who suggested halving the number of indicators so that we could reduce the number of targets expected from the police. It was also we who brought across the former commissioner from New York to instil the importance of community and targeted policing and talked to former Mayor Giuliani about what had worked in New York. We are involving ourselves directly in achieving the sort of reform that will improve the police service, on the back of the substantial increase in numbers that this Government have brought about.
    Hugh Bayley: Does the Home Secretary agree that one of the reforms most badly needed is reform of police pensions, because the cost of pensions bears much more heavily on some police authorities than on others? Its effect on North Yorkshire is especially heavy. Will my right hon. Friend make proposals for reforming police pensions, and if so, when might we expect an announcement about this important reform?
    Mr. Blunkett: We indicated in the White Paper that we believed reform to be necessary, but that it had to come first in respect of variable performance, overregulation and outdated practices, not least because Governments of a variety of persuasions have fought over the years to try to get to grips with a system under which, in many areas, almost a fifth of the total police budget is used for servicing the pension. I hope that anyone who comes up with a bright idea about how to reform the pension will be heard in due silence, if the proposal would not either cause people to want to leave the force very quickly and take advantage of the existing rate, or preclude them from wanting to remain in the service more
    4
    than 30 years. Above all, there is the need to reduce dramatically the level of medical early retirement, which anyone of any political persuasion will agree is very damaging to the force as a whole.
    Vera Baird: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a further category of urgent need for police reform was revealed by the damning report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary published on 8 April, which showed the half-hearted way in which rape cases are investigated by police in the United Kingdom? This contributes to a strikingly low conviction rate: only one in 13 complaints result in a conviction. If my right hon. Friend has not yet discussed that critical and urgent need for reform with the police, what plans does he have to do so?
    Mr. Blunkett: I have not had the opportunity of doing so with the Association of Chief Police Officers, but I have done so with the Attorney-General, who is very exercised by the statistics and, therefore, by the reality that many people experience. At his suggestion, we will set up a joint working group immediately, to work with him and with the police and criminal justice system to see whether we can bring about a dramatic improvement.
    Mr. David Curry: The Secretary of State has earned a solid reputation for speaking directly and not mincing his words. Would he accept that one lesson to be learned from the recent consultation on police pay is that policemen sometimes thought that that created an atmosphere of antagonism, which earned the Secretary of State a rebuff for measures that many people regard as necessary? Would he reserve his antagonism for the Chancellor of the Exchequer? That would be extremely welcome.
    Mr. Blunkett: No, I reserve my antagonism for the villains who we are all intent on catching. I reserve praise for the Chancellor for the Budget last Wednesday, and for the resources that were released for secure accommodation and prison places and for tackling crime and for counter-terrorism, all of which I hope the House will strongly welcome. The distribution of those resources will be announced shortly.
    I also want to reinforce heavily the backing for the police for the work that they are engaged in across the country. With an extra 4,500 police officers over the last two years, we now have an opportunity to build on the improvement in morale and to invest in catching and convicting more criminals, in preventing more criminals from reoffending and, above all, in creating a safer society in which hatred, prejudice and fascism can be thwarted.
    Mr. James Paice: In the Home Secretary's list of things that he has done, he omitted to mention that virtually all of them simply involved undoing the actions of his predecessor. What would the Home Secretary tell the inspector of police to whom I spoke last week who wanted to increase community policing in the city-centre area for which he was responsible? His city-centre police station had to deal with 100 shoplifters each month, and he estimated that each case took four hours. That is equivalent to 10 officers permanently occupied with dealing with shoplifters. How much more effective would policing have been in that

    5
    community if those 10 officers had been properly deployed in the community, policing the streets and getting to grips with the problems of the neighbourhood, rather than having to face the bureaucracy and form filling which, despite the Home Secretary's earlier remarks, are still a hallmark of this Government?
    Mr. Blunkett: The simple answer is, "A lot better." If there is any dispute about the need to get officers out into the community doing preventive work, I have not heard it. As I saw in Nottinghamshire on Thursday, tremendous strides are being made, in co-operation with business and commerce, to get the police out on the main streets as we are doing in the safer streets campaign in London and the anti-robbery campaign across the 10 forces. The police are using closed circuit television to apprehend those engaged in shoplifting and other crimes of robbery, and local communication links such as two-way radio with the shopkeepers to take action on the street to prevent those crimes from happening. That is what the anti-street robbery initiative is about. With the co-operation of chiefs of police at local level, who have, and will continue to have, operational control, we can achieve a dramatic change in preventing people from committing crimes in the first place.
    Annabelle Ewing: The Home Secretary is doubtless aware of the serious concern among police officers in Scotland over the pay and conditions negotiations and their perception of how those were handled. Some 94 per cent. voted against the heads of agreement, although I am pleased to hear today that conciliation is ongoing. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what will happen if no satisfactory agreement is reached pursuant to the conciliation? Will the matter go to arbitration?
    Mr. Blunkett: Should we be unable to find a solution through conciliation, it is open to any of those participating in the Police Negotiating Board to refer the case to arbitration, which would be the next step. I hope that that does not happen. We clearly have a disagreement remaining on the major issue of how to get overtime payments down in order to redeploy the resources to front-line policing on a more rational and planned basis. If we can solve that problem, I feel certain that the conciliation process will succeed.

    Chief Constables
    Chris Grayling: If he will make a statement on the operational independence of chief constables. [47061]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): The police are under a duty to enforce the law, but chief officers have wide discretion in how they apply their resources to achieve that. No Minister or police authority may instruct a chief officer of police on whether or how they should act in relation to a particular case or individual. The House knows that the measures being sought by the Government to tackle persistent poor performance do not alter that principle.
    Chris Grayling: The Minister is aware that among those who have raised concerns about the reform
    6
    proposals are chief constables themselves, who believe that they intrude significantly on their operational independence. He is also aware that bringing the senior people—in this case, the chief constables—on board quickly is essential in developing any process of change. Why has he failed to get them behind his process of change?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, last week, the Association of Chief Police Officers welcomed the amendments that the Government introduced in another place. Sadly, that message was not heeded by all parties there, but we listened and responded, and our response has been welcomed.
    Ross Cranston: Is not our constitutional provision that there should be no political interference or interference with the operational performance of the police sacrosanct, and have not the Government made that absolutely clear? Will not the power be used very exceptionally—sonce in a blue moon? Does my right hon. Friend understand the criticism? The chief executive officers of our major industries and the heads of public services are out of the door if they do not perform. What is the difference with the police? I cannot understand the argument for it; can my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. Of course it is right to listen to the debate about operational independence—indeed, that is why, for the first time ever, the principle that I set out earlier has been stated in the Police Reform Bill—but another issue must be taken into account. What do a Government say to a community, a town or an inner-city area that for a long time has not received the quality policing and, therefore, the protection from crime, criminals and the fear of crime that it deserves? In such circumstances, surely Ministers who stand at the Dispatch Box must be able to say, "If necessary, we will act." That is precisely what the Bill sets out to achieve. Everybody should understand that the Opposition parties that oppose the proposal are saying to such people, "We will not lift a finger to help you, no matter what problems you face."
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister referred to the Government amendments introduced in another place, but was it not disingenuous to fail to recognise that the only reason for their introduction was pressure from Conservative Members in another place? Do not the Government recognise that what remains a concern for chief constables and for many in another place and on these Benches—clause 5 of the Police Reform Bill—will lead only to increased centralisation and still gives the Home Secretary power to interfere in what chief constables want to do? Having made welcome changes in response to pressure from us, will he go further and accept what we are saying about clause 5?
    Mr. Denham: As I understand it, the Conservative party has said that it does not want clause 5 in the Bill, and it has no intention of ever doing anything about the problems of policing a particular community, no matter how deep-seated they may be.
    The hon. Gentleman is wrong to use the centralisation tag. The Government are working with the police to deliver what they want. They said that they wanted more

    7
    police officers, and we have provided the resources that have delivered record numbers of police officers—there will be 130,000 next year. The police said that we should cut down on the things that hamper them in their fight against crime, so we have introduced video identity parades to replace the old-style parades that took weeks to organise and enabled people to evade being brought to justice. They told us that we should speed up the courts, so we have halved the time that it takes for a young offender to go from arrest to sentence. They told us, in London in particular, that they want community support officers to free other officers to fight street crime. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, far from backing the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not here to answer for the Opposition parties.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I represent a community of exactly the sort to which the Minister referred. It has been historically let down by its chief constable and its police officers have work loads much greater than those of other police officers in the same police authority. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that communities such as Slough which—on any statistical analysis—expect their police officers to work twice as hard as other police officers in the same police authority, get a better standard of policing?
    Mr. Denham: I believe that the whole package of police reform measures will enable the problems of particular communities and towns to be tackled not just through the powers that we seek in clause 5, but through greater flexibility in the way in which the police are rewarded, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just referred. All policing jobs are difficult and demanding, but some are even more so. That should be recognised in the employment and rewards of police officers. The whole package will make it much easier for the police service and chief constables to address those problems.

    Police Morale
    Mr. David Lidington: What recent assessment he has made of police morale. [47062]
    Bob Spink: What recent assessment he has made of police morale. [47073]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): We created an extra 4,578 officers in the period from March 2000 to January this year; we have established a new occupational health service; and we have provided a one-third increase in capital investment for this coming year to enhance the conditions in which officers work and the technology that they use. We have slimmed down bureaucracy, and we have made a commitment to having 130,000 officers by this time next year. As a result, we can all look forward to officers catching more criminals and being able to protect us more effectively. We will ensure that they know that they are valued, and feel that they are valued, and that their morale improves all the time.
    Mr. Lidington: Surely the Home Secretary agrees that the optimistic assessment that he has just given the House
    8
    would be regarded by the more than 800 officers from the Thames Valley alone who attended the lobby and rally in central London as at best a fantasy compared with the reality that they experience. Does he realise that one of the chief causes of low morale in our police service has been his intemperate and hectoring language towards hard-pressed officers in all parts of the country? Does he now regret describing our police as wreckers?
    Mr. Blunkett: I would, but I have never used that word. I have never described the police as wreckers privately, publicly, on radio or in writing or to any journalist. When Opposition Members, like some journalists, put words into my mouth, they should ensure that they get them accurate.
    Bob Spink: Over the past two weeks, I have met the Police Federation, the police associations, police officers and sergeants on the beat day and night in my constituency, and I have spoken with senior command officers in Essex. They all tell me that police morale is at dangerous levels. Does the Home Secretary realise that, if, he continues to pursue his policies of centralisation and putting civilians on the street with police powers, the morale of the police will be driven lower, to even more dangerous levels? Will he pull back from those ill-thought-out reforms?
    Mr. Blunkett: First, the only civilians who are, or who will be, put on the streets with police powers are the Specials. We are not proposing to give community support officers a replica set of police powers.
    Secondly, the police themselves want support and back-up work. The Metropolitan force in particular has asked us for that. Anyone, in this place or the Lords, who votes against that proposition should answer to the public and to the locality—and to the Commissioner and the other chief constables who they rightly say should have operational control—as to why they want to take away the power and right to have the operational control and the support for full-time, trained officers, many of whom are on the beat because we have put an extra 4,500 on the streets over the past two years.
    Vernon Coaker: I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Nottinghamshire last week, where he saw a force that was not having a crisis of morale but working hard, in partnership with others, to tackle some real problems. However, one issue that affects the morale of the police is the fact that persistent offenders are constantly bailed by the courts, which undermines the good work that the police often do. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his proposals to deal more effectively with persistent offenders are speedily implemented?
    Mr. Blunkett: First, I confirm that the morale of the force was very high. Steve Green, the chief constable, is an excellent leader and manager who is doing a first-rate job with officers in a service that has been reorganised since 2 April. That is enthusing all of them with a new vigour and commitment.
    Secondly, yes, we shall put in place the recommendations that I made last Tuesday. The order has been laid in respect of intermediate cases that did not previously result in remand for those on bail. Furthermore, the Chancellor's Budget enabled me to set

    9
    up additional places—2,300 remand and prison places—over the months ahead. That will enable the courts to do the job that we all want done so that repeat, continuing, prolific offenders are put out of harm's way until they can be dealt with through the courts and properly convicted.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that there has been no year during the past 10 when those representing, or purporting to represent, the police have not declared police morale to be at an all-time low? Has he also noticed that the number of recruits to the police is at an all-time high, and that there is no difficulty in attracting recruits? Does he consider that odd?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I consider it very odd indeed.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the factors depressing police morale in London and the south-east is that, despite recent improvements in housing allowances, many police officers have to commute long distances because of the shortage of affordable housing? Does he share my concern about the fact that the Metropolitan police in particular are continuing the policy introduced under the last Government of selling off police housing? Is he monitoring that process and giving guidance to the authority about the proper policy to pursue?
    Mr. Blunkett: We were pleased to be able to join the national health service in using its low-cost co-ordinators to find accommodation and identify property suitable for renting. We are using the new programme for travel costs brought in by my predecessor. That has been a tremendous boon to those working in the Metropolitan area—sometimes to the detriment of forces just outside, as people find that it is attractive to be able to travel into the area. Of course, I am happy to raise with the Metropolitan police authority and with the Commissioner any concerns expressed by hon. Members, in the expectation that, within their operational jurisdiction, they will listen to those concerns.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend accept Labour Members" appreciation for his work to improve police morale at all levels through discussion and dialogue with officers? Does he believe that more aids such as CCTV—particularly portable CCTV, which will help officers in small urban areas—would greatly boost police morale?
    Mr. Blunkett: Together with up-to-date, 21st-century equipment and the complete review in which we are engaged, the process through which police officers make charges and secure subsequent convictions and the spreading of excellence across the country will ensure that best practice can be available to all. Of course, that process is backed up by the measures that I described earlier, which will reduce sickness absence and support those who work day in, day out at the sharp end, including the rewards in the new reform package. They will provide specific bonus payments for those who do the most difficult tasks in the most difficult circumstances at the most difficult time of the week.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary will doubtless agree with the apparently
    10
    unanimous view of the House that nothing would raise the morale of the police more than the feeling that they are, as he said earlier, out on main street fighting crime in the community. But have not the bureaucratic measures introduced by this Government during the past five years contributed to the feeling among police officers that they cannot do so? As one community constable said, they face
    "an ever increasingly demanding environment where performance targets seem to outnumber personnel."
    Moreover, even if the Home Secretary did not use the word "wreckers", criticisms have been expressed about the police's belief that they are consistently denigrated—an impression that drove them to lobby the House. Has not the combination of those two factors done more to undermine police morale than anything else?
    Mr. Blunkett: No, I do not agree. I am sorry that we cannot give the hon. Gentleman a round of applause for his rhetoric, but it bears no resemblance to reality. Officers lobbied the House—in most cases, perfectly reasonably—because they were concerned that the package of measures would lead to too many losers and not enough winners, and in particular because they were concerned about premium payments on overtime rates. That is what the conciliation process is seeking to address, and I think that a solution will be found.
    Because of increased numbers, better technology, the spread of best practice and the demanding of better from all forces so that the performance of the best can be matched, people in our communities will experience better security and safety, and will be able to believe more readily statistics showing that crime has fallen. Above all, they will be prepared to invest further in crime reduction and policing, because they will see that it is worth while. That applies not only to those who are subject to the worst criminality in our most deprived communities, but to those who are negotiating the spending review.

    Police Numbers
    Mrs. Joan Humble: What plans he has to increase the number of police officers. [47064]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): At the end of January, police numbers stood at the record level of 128,748. We are on track to reach our target of 130,000 officers by spring 2003.
    The Government's crime fighting fund has played a major part in driving up officer numbers. It is enabling forces to take on 9,000 recruits, over and above previous plans, in the three years to March 2003.
    Mrs. Humble: I welcome the additional police numbers that my right hon. Friend has announced. Will he join me in congratulating Blackpool police force on using its additional 45 police officers not only actively to reduce crime, but to reduce the fear of crime through high-visibility policing? Does he agree that the best way to further that aim is to reduce the level of paperwork that keeps so many police officers at their station desks?
    Mr. Denham: I am very pleased to hear of the way in which Lancashire police are meeting my hon. Friend's

    11
    constituents" policing needs. She is absolutely right to say that we must go further to reduce paperwork. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, we have drawn attention to that problem. We have asked Sir David O'Dowd, the former chief inspector of constabulary, to lead a taskforce, which is composed overwhelmingly of serving police officers of all ranks, to identify for us the measures that need to be taken to reduce bureaucracy. The measures that we have already taken to introduce video identity parades show how committed we are to making progress and to freeing up police officers" time for patrolling duties.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: The Minister will be aware that areas such as Berkshire, which have very high housing costs and are very close to the Met, are having serious recruitment and retention problems. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about that, particular bearing in mind the fact that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has increased national insurance contributions, which will make it even harder for hard-pressed police officers to buy or rent property in our area?
    Mr. Denham: We are working closely with the very small number of forces that have not done as well as the vast majority of forces in the past few years in delivering the extra 4,500 police officers across the country to whom my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred earlier. I am confident that the problems that have affected recruitment in each of those areas are being identified and that they, too, will benefit from the growth in police numbers that the police service as a whole will experience.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Although I accept everything that my right hon. Friend says—we have done a lot to improve policing throughout the country—I am sure that he will recognise that people are always saying that we need more police in the communities. Does he believe that community wardens—such as those we have in Burnley, working together with the police—help to give communities the better standard of life that we want them to have?
    Mr. Denham: I agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, I recently visited Burnley and was able to hear at first hand how popular has been the police's decision to develop more fully the community beat officer role and the very important links between police officers and the extended police family provided by community wardens. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: Have not the questions and the answers this afternoon demonstrated that policing is not just a matter of numbers and that the main question is how the police are managed and deployed and what they have to spend their time doing? I am genuinely puzzled by the messages that Ministers seem to be giving us. Half the time they seem to deny that they are centralising and bureaucratising the police, whereas the rest of the time they appear to be justifying doing so. The Home Secretary
    12
    and I have recently been studying policing in America. What has the Minister concluded from studying policing in the Netherlands and Belgium?
    Mr. Denham: We are working with the police service to deliver the type of police service that we, the police and, more important, the public want to see in local communities: more police officers, with more time to play a visible role in the community. The hon. Gentleman asks about policing in the Netherlands. I can tell him that one of the things that the Dutch do is to deploy people very similar to the community support officers that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis wishes to deploy in London—something which the Government will make possible, but which the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats want to deny to the people of London.
    Mr. Letwin: I am delighted to hear that the Minister is so knowledgeable, but it is odd that that is not the way officials and policemen in the Netherlands and Belgium describe the situation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the Netherlands and more recently in Belgium, neighbourhood police officers—the bobbies on the beat, who become the custodians of the neighbourhood—are described by large numbers of officers who have spoken to us as the elite force, because that is what people demand locally?
    Is the Minister also aware that, in the Netherlands and more recently in Belgium, increased and increasingly effective control over street crime has been brought about by decreasing central bureaucracy and decentralising control over the police? Is he aware that by international standards his efforts and those of the Home Secretary to centralise control over the police in this country under clause 5 of the Police Reform Bill are a retrograde eccentricity?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is about as wrong as it is possible to be. He is wrong in his characterisation of the Government's proposals and in his suggestion that we are opposed to developing the role of community beat officers—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and many others have been advocates of that essential role of police officers in the community. The hon. Gentleman is also wrong to oppose the types of reform that, according to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, would enable him to free the time of police officers from the routine but necessary patrolling duties that have been seen since 11 September. The Commissioner would like to be able to free those officers to join the fight against street crime. That fight has already had a big impact on street crime, yet the hon. Gentleman opposes it. He is wrong to oppose those changes.

    Street Crime
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on how the police can make an impact on street crime. [47065]
    Mr. Michael Jack: What additional resources are being made available to the police to respond to levels of street robberies and violent crime. [47072]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): There have been three meetings of the cross-Government street action group, which is chaired by the Prime Minister and involves ministerial colleagues, the police and local government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last Wednesday that £180 million in new money and a further £100 million from the criminal justice system reserve is to be made available to the Home Office.
    Mr. Khabra: I have received a number of letters from constituents complaining about crime, especially street crime, in my constituency. Recent cases in my constituency include an arson attack in which two people were burned to death, and a person killed by stabbing. Muggings are on the increase, and two cases of murder remain unsolved. Police capabilities have been stretched to the limit by the fact that the police have had to deal with a large number of marches of a religious or political nature. A large number of such events take place in my constituency, which is unique. Ours is a multicultural society, and many people would like to come and settle in my constituency.
    My question is this. Will the Home Secretary consider allocating more resources to the police force in my constituency? The force is in a unique situation and it needs more resources.
    Mr. Denham: I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend acknowledges the considerable work that the Metropolitan police have done in constituencies such as his, which contain members of many different minority communities who have been fearful of racism and misjudged reprisals following the events of 11 September. The policing operation has been considerable and, I believe, successful. My hon. Friend is right to say that it has imposed on police time, but it was necessary.
    Now, in response to street crime, the safer streets initiative has been started in London. That has shown everyone how having high-profile policing on the streets, well directed and concentrated on a certain area, can have a real impact. In the eighth week of the safer streets campaign, street crime in London was 14 per cent. below its level a year previously, and in the target boroughs the reduction was 21 per cent.
    My hon. Friend asks about resources. First, we need to support the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in terms of powers for community support officers so that he can free up officer time to help in the battle against street crime. Secondly, it is clear that part of the allocation of resources made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to go to the fight against street crime, and we hope to announce details of that as soon as possible.
    Mr. Jack: If things are going so well in London, why did the Daily Express tell us today that detectives ignore two thirds of muggings in Lambeth?
    Police in Lancashire take the robbery reduction initiative extremely seriously, but they have not yet had any extra resources following notification by the Home Secretary of their inclusion in the initiative. Further to that, are more resources to be made available to the probation service in
    14
    Lancashire, and to the drugs prevention initiative, to ensure that they, too, can play their full part in combating street crime and robbery reduction?
    Mr. Denham: The first point to make is that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about Lambeth. The truth is that street robbery offences fell from 916 in October 2001 to 513 in March 2002. That is a 12-month low and a 17 per cent. reduction on robbery figures for March 2001. During the eight weeks of the safer streets initiative, the number of robberies in Lambeth fell by 6.4 per cent., ahead of the trend across the rest of the capital.
    On resources, the big question for the right hon. Gentleman is whether to back the decisions by the Chancellor that have enabled us to say that we will invest more money to tackle street crime. We shall see what he has decided to do in the next day or two. If he is not here voting in favour of the Chancellor's decisions, he is in no position to start asking questions about extra resources for Lancashire.
    Mr. David Borrow: In my right hon. Friend's discussions with his colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department, will he give particular emphasis to the approaches taken by magistrates, especially in relation to new initiatives? Last year, I was involved with the first case in my constituency arising from an antisocial behaviour order. When it eventually went to the magistrates court to be enforced, the magistrates gave the person concerned a conditional discharge. I was subsequently advised by the Home Office that they did not have the power to do that. Lo and behold, a few weeks ago the same individual was taken to the magistrates court in Chorley in connection with a similar order, when a conditional discharge was again given. Will my right hon. Friend ask his colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that those who advise magistrates courts understand what the law is and are able to enforce it correctly?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I shall certainly refer his remarks to the Lord Chancellor's Department. Antisocial behaviour orders work best where there is clear understanding and support from every single part of the criminal justice system, as well as the youth service, social services and so on. I shall see what we can do to address the matter that he raises.
    We are working closely with the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that appropriately restrictive bail conditions, or indeed the refusal of bail, are used when tackling persistent offenders, especially street robbers.
    Mr. John Horam: Is the Minister aware that in the London borough of Bromley street crime has risen by 150 per cent. over the past 12 months? Is he also aware that the number of police officers in Bromley has fallen from 464 in 1997 to fewer than 430 today, as a result not only of his decisions, but of the decisions of the Liberal Democrat and Labour majorities on the Metropolitan police authority? Can he tell the residents of Bromley why they should pay more and more for fewer and fewer police as crime gets worse and worse?
    Mr. Denham: I am tempted to refer the hon. Gentleman to the shadow Home Secretary, who clearly would not want anybody to be able to do anything about anywhere that did not have enough police officers.
    The good news for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and for the people of London as a whole is that the number of Metropolitan police officers rose by 1,000 in the 10 months to January this year and will rise again next year. That is evidence of our commitment to ensuring that the number of police officers in London increases. It is of course for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to decide how those officers are allocated across the London boroughs.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: In my constituency last week there was a particularly ugly incident in Trealaw following the death of a young boy in a drug-related incident. A riot took place when the dealer involved turned up at the funeral. Will my right hon. Friend address the coincidence of drug-related crime and violent crime—especially in the south Wales valleys, where it is prevalent—with a view to providing additional resources for the police in the area?
    Mr. Denham: There is a relationship between drug abuse, especially of class A drugs such as heroin and crack, and violent crime. The chief constable of south Wales recently expressed concern about the impact of heroin. We intend to enable the police to concentrate their time on the class A drugs which do the most damage to our communities. We also intend to work across government to ensure the availability of treatment services so that people who get hooked on serious drugs receive treatment and support to enable them to overcome their addiction. That is critical if we are to break the cycle of acquisitive and violent crime.
    Simon Hughes: I am sure that the public are genuinely relieved that, after five years of Labour in government, police numbers have increased from those under the Conservative Government. People were pleased that the Chancellor allocated £180 million of new money for Home Office priorities in last Wednesday's Budget. However, when will there be additional resources to make up the extra cost to the police authorities of the employers" national insurance contribution, which takes money away from front-line policing? When will all parish and local councils that want them get funding for as many neighbourhood or community support wardens as they need? Will Home Office Ministers join those from other Departments in a campaign for many more youth, community and sports workers to provide genuine alternative, constructive activities to divert young people from crime?
    Mr. Denham: That was quite a shopping list. The resources that the Chancellor has made available to the police and other Home Office services will be announced shortly, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. The spending review will deal with longer-term issues. It is also important to ensure that every one of the record number of police officers is used effectively. We therefore support the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in introducing community support officers. I cannot understand why the Liberal Democrats, who originally
    16
    supported the idea, have subsequently decided to oppose it. That would mean not making the best use of police officers in London.

    Dangerousness Orders
    Mr. Clive Soley: If he will make a statement on progress towards establishing dangerousness orders. [47066]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): We have acted already and are continuing to act to address the challenge to public safety posed by dangerous people. We have introduced a raft of measures, including sex offender orders, which we will further strengthen.
    We also plan to introduce new measures to deal more effectively with the dangers posed by people with a severe personality disorder.
    Mr. Soley: Does my hon. Friend accept that this is a difficult but profoundly important subject to tackle, and that it involves a relatively small number of violent offenders who can wreck people's lives and kill? Does she accept that we need to introduce some legislation to deal with people who are acknowledged to pose a high risk to others? At times, they ask to be locked up to be prevented from doing what they fear they will do, as happened in at least one case a few years ago. Although this is a difficult matter, I ask my hon. Friend not to give up on it.
    Beverley Hughes: I know that my hon. Friend has great interest and expertise in this matter, which he rightly describes as important. We all know of several cases that have exposed the gaps in legislation and in assessment and treatment, especially of those who are dangerous and have personality disorders. We are determined to close the gap; we have published proposals and will introduce legislation as soon as possible. In the meantime, we are developing four important pilot projects in two high-security prisons and two special hospitals. Development of assessment and treatment is also important.
    We are also considering the way in which new sentences, including new orders, can help us better to ensure that a dangerous person, whether suffering from a personality disorder or not, will remain in custody or under supervision while continuing to present risk. Risk assessment and management is the key to that.
    Mr. Edward Gamier: Does the Minister accept that the need for dangerousness orders would be vastly reduced if the number of police was greatly increased? Often only two police officers patrol the whole rural area of Harborough district on Fridays and Saturdays. In the Oadby and Wigston borough council area, there are always far too few police officers to carry out necessary police work. It is annoying for the police to be continually harassed by Members of Parliament and members of the public about their inability to carry out their work. Why do not the Government stop talking and get on and do something?
    Beverley Hughes: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong, and he has managed to divert a question

    17
    on another very important but different topic back to the subject of policing. The most important factor in protecting the public from dangerous offenders is not the number of police officers per se; it is effective and strong partnership between the police, the probation service, the health service and other agencies at local level. It is also crucial to have in place the measures to contain, treat, observe and survey those offenders. Since 1997 there has been a sea change in the way in which agencies work together, and we have introduced measures such as sex offenders orders to reduce the risk to the minimum level possible. We need to go further, but that is not a matter of having more police; it is a matter of better inter-agency working.

    Drug Misuse
    Linda Perham: What assessment he has made of the links between drugs misuse and crime; and what steps are being taken to tackle the problem. [47068]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Research shows a strong connection between the misuse of heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine and theft and other acquisitive crime, and a consequent high level of local concern about supply and other drug-related activity. Measures to tackle that include the £220 million communities against drugs programme, a range of interventions in the criminal justice system to identify drug misusing offenders and get them into appropriate treatment, and our ongoing efforts to disrupt the supply of those drugs.
    Linda Perham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. My local court, Redbridge magistrates court, which is one of the most effective and efficient in the country, is concerned about the suitability of drug treatment and testing orders for less serious offenders, including young and first-time offenders. Are there any sentencing measures that my hon. Friend can introduce to cope with those offenders?
    Mr. Ainsworth: We recognise and accept that drug treatment and testing orders are not suitable in every circumstance, and that is why we introduced drug abstinence orders and requirements. With regard to young people, it is our view that magistrates" ability to make various attachments to supervisory orders is sufficiently comprehensive. Youth offending teams have the funding to ensure that all young offenders are assessed for drug misuse, so they are able to access appropriate treatment where it is available and as outlined by the drug action teams. However, if specific concerns are being raised by my hon. Friend's local magistrates, we should of course be prepared to listen to those. I should be more than happy to receive further representations from her about the gap in provision perceived by magistrates in her constituency.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Would I be correct in inferring from the Minister's initial reply that
    18
    the Government are moving towards the decriminalisation of so-called soft drugs? If that is the case, will the Minister bear it in mind that many people have grave misgivings about such a move?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman should not take any such inference from my reply. I was asked what assessment we had made of the clear link between drug misuse and acquisitive crime. All our research shows the clearest link between the three substances that I mentioned—heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine—and such crime.
    That does not mean that other drugs are not harmful—they are. It continues to be the Government's intention that those drugs should remain illegal, and that the message that all drugs are harmful should continue to go out. However, if we are to get young people to listen to us, we have to try to differentiate the message so that we can say to them that certain substances are seriously dangerous both to themselves as individuals and to the communities in which they live. Our effort has to be directed towards having the maximum effect on the use of class A drugs.

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Jim Dobbin: If he will make a statement on the new Criminal Records Bureau; and what plans he has to give employers access to criminal records. [47071]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): The Criminal Records Bureau will provide employers and organisations with improved access to criminal records and other information, through applications initiated by individuals. Its primary purpose is to help employers and voluntary organisations make safer recruiting decisions, especially for those working with children or vulnerable adults. The bureau first began processing applications for the two higher levels of disclosures on 11 March.
    Jim Dobbin: I thank the Minister for that reply. I agree that care in recruitment procedures is absolutely essential to protect children, young people and other vulnerable groups from dangerous people. Can my hon. Friend assure me and the House that job applicants and voluntary workers will have a fair deal through these procedures, and that at least their private lives will he protected?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right that we are dealing with sensitive issues—the criminal records of individuals—and, to ensure that that information is used fairly and that the individual's rights to privacy are not prejudiced, no disclosure can be issued without the consent of the individual applicant, and the information is always provided to the individual applicant. If they are unhappy about any aspects of it, they have the opportunity to challenge it before it is made known to anyone else, including their employer.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Home Office Ministers are still in the Chamber, may I ask whether you have received any indication from them that they intend to make a statement about the impending visit to this country of Henry Kissinger, and requests that have been made in courts in Spain for him to be investigated by the Metropolitan police for abuses of human rights in Chile and other countries in south America during the 1970s, when Operation Condor killed large numbers of people? It is a matter of international human rights, and, as Henry Kissinger will be in this country, it would seem a useful opportunity to ask him questions, as he is a person in a good position to know a lot of answers.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such approach from any Minister.

Vaccination of Children (Parental Choice)
3.32 pm
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow parents to choose to have their child vaccinated separately against measles, mumps and rubella; and for connected purposes.
There is a simple point to this Bill: to give parents a choice. I believe that they deserve that choice, and clearly they wish to have it, as 80 per cent. of the public appear to agree with the contents of my Bill. It would require the Department of Health to allow GPs to give parents the choice of single vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella, rather than the prevailing situation, in which any child being inoculated for these diseases can have only a combined triple vaccine, which is known as the MMR, on the national health service.
I believe that that lack of choice in the national health service is why we are seeing massively falling immunisation rates for children across the country, particularly here in London, against these dangerous childhood diseases. Sadly, the figures are not terribly up to date. The most recent figures that I could find from the House of Commons Library pertained to the year 2000–01. Those figures show that 87 per cent. of children across the country are now protected against these dangerous childhood diseases, falling to 79 per cent. of all children in London. That compares with the figure in 1995–96 when 92 per cent. of all children across the country had been vaccinated.
Clearly, there is a major fall in the number of children being vaccinated, and those figures apply to some 18 months before today's date. I fear that events over the past 18 months are likely to mean that, when new figures are produced, we will see a further fall in the number of children being vaccinated—almost certainly, one in four children will not have been vaccinated for these dangerous diseases in the London area. The Department of Health and the Government should allow parents the choice of single vaccinations; the arguments for that are straightforward.
I believe that the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker; if he does so, I am sure that he can give a list of organisations that approve of the combined triple vaccination. There are too many to mention in my short 10-minute speech, but I do not doubt that they believe that it is right to give children the MMR.
Parents are entitled to choice; they make decisions on behalf of their children which, along with their right to choose, should be respected by the Department of Health among others. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), may not like it, parents are choosing not to have their children vaccinated because they are not being offered a choice. I am sure that we both seek the same end—increased vaccination rates. It is important that children are vaccinated and the only way to accomplish that is to provide choice on the national health service. Parents are now in the position of having all, meaning the MMR vaccine, or nothing, and clearly far too many of them are choosing nothing.
For the luckier ones who live near a private clinic, and who can afford to spend hundreds of pounds on private singly administered vaccinations, there is a choice. We do

21
not know quite how many parents choose to have single vaccinations privately because the Department of Health does not keep those figures. However, the situation is not fair for parents who cannot choose single vaccinations, either for logistical or financial reasons, which is another reason why the Department should change its guidance.
People with young children may remember that little babies are vaccinated at three months, six months and nine months. There is no reason why, at 18 months, they should not go back to the doctor to have a further set of vaccinations; that is perfectly reasonable for those parents who wish vaccination to be done in that way.
At the moment, doctors have a financial incentive to vaccinate in the form of the MMR; if there is an incentive to boost vaccination rates in general, doctors who use a computer database to determine which children need to be recalled for single vaccinations could just as easily boost the number of children immunised through the triple vaccination as they could the number of children immunised through a series of three jabs. It is logistically possible for that choice to be given on the NHS. It is a great disappointment that the Department of Health is pig-headedly refusing to give parents that choice.
Administrative reasons are among the many reasons why the Department appears to be against providing choice, and I have just dealt with that. Doctors are able to make sure that their systems are compliant and that they can call up children in danger of missing their jabs because they are having them done singly.
Curiously, the Department has suggested that somehow it would be dangerous to allow children to have separate inoculations. If we had a system that allowed single jabs, I do not see why children could not be inoculated against the most dangerous disease first. If children were given the measles jab first, many of the Department's arguments about the danger of single jabs would fall. At the moment, the only way to secure a single jab on the NHS is for a child to have the rubella jab first if there is a risk of contact with a pregnant woman. If the Department changed its guidance and guidelines, the measles vaccination could be given first, and the risk of contracting the most dangerous disease, from which children may die, and which certainly has serious repercussions, would be removed. After that, children could have vaccinations for rubella and mumps. That would not pose any danger to public health and would counter one of the Government's major and most frequently cited arguments for not proceeding with single inoculations.
There is, of course, another reason why the Department of Health has set its face against giving parents the right of choice within the system: 2,000 parents are suing the Department because they believe that their children have been damaged by the MMR vaccine. That case may come to court in the next couple of years. How would hon. Members feel if they were in the position of those 2,000 parents, with a child who had been developing perfectly well but who, the parents believe, was damaged by the vaccination that they had taken the child to have? If I were the parent of one of those children, I would not want to believe that any action of mine had resulted in catastrophic damage to my child so that they would not lead a normal life.
I do not believe, that the claims of those parents are vexatious. They do not want to accept that an action that they took lies at the heart of their child's problems. I urge
22
the Minister to consider the possible outcome of the case if it is decided that there might be a problem with the MMR vaccine and that in some way the Department of Health and the Government are liable. Ministers are proceeding down a worrying road. If they allowed art element of choice, they could absolve themselves of much of that potential blame.
We all know that medical procedures, including the simplest operations, can have severe side effects or even result in death. All medical procedures involve that possibility, so we cannot rule out the possibility that the same is true of MMR. Given that fact, the only way forward is to offer parents choice. In exercising that choice, they will be taking responsibility upon themselves.
3.42 pm
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I must admire the persistence of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkhride). She has raised this matter on Adjournment debates, in meetings in the House and now on a ten-minute Bill. She knows very well that I take the view that her persistence would be much better targeted if she campaigned for the needs of autistic people. If she put some of that persistence into campaigning for additional research into autism and its causes and therapies, I would support her.
One of the reasons for the drop in MMR take-up is that people as persistent as the hon. Lady raise the matter constantly and bring into the public domain the most tenuous and circumstantial evidence to support their case. The overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports exactly what the Government are trying to do. I cannot imagine circumstances under which a responsible Government could ignore the huge welter of evidence presented to them, turn their back on it and take a diametrically opposed view.
The Government's position is not and has never been based on political dogma on this matter. It is not and has never been based on administrative convenience, as the hon. Lady suggested. It is based on the advice of public health professionals. At a time when we are debating the needs of the national health service, we would do well to remember that more people's lives are saved and more sickness and misery are prevented by public health measures than by anything that happens in primary or secondary care. We lose sight of that at our peril.
We are faced with a clear case of scientists and public health professionals in difficult circumstances weighing up all the advantages and disadvantages, the risks and the costs, and presenting as near as possible a unified approach to Government. The Government are taking that advice, as a responsible Government should. Attacking that advice and continuing to bring such tenuous and circumstantial evidence to public attention is an attempt to undermine the Government. If take-up of the triple vaccine is falling as the hon. Lady suggested, there are children in this country whose lives are at lethal risk. People who continually raise the matter in this way must bear responsibility for that.
I will not trawl through the list of organisations that the hon. Lady mentioned. I could certainly mention all those that recommend MMR, and I could cite the 90 countries that use it. I could in great detail go through the scientific evidence that shows no link between MMR and autism. I shall not do so, but I will mention a few cases. The data

23
produced by Brent Taylor's report based on children here in London show no correlation between MMR and autism. The evidence produced by Boston university, using data from the UK, shows that while MMR take-up rates have flattened, the increase in autism is as steep as ever. Therefore, there is no correlation between MMR and autism.
I could go through all the evidence that suggests that whatever causes autism happens in the first three months of embryological development. It almost certainly happens in the earliest months of pregnancy, possibly even before the woman knows that she is pregnant. We have clear evidence of some sort of effect at that time in the child's development. Clear evidence is also emerging from the United States that new-born children have chemical markers in their systems that demonstrate that they already have autism. The autism may not develop for 18 months or two years, but they have the ticking time bomb that is autism in their systems. There is a huge body of evidence showing no link. To throw away the advantages of MMR on the basis of a few small shreds of non-proven data would be irresponsible in the extreme.
Let us not forget what all this is about: the phenomenon of herd immunity. Once take-up levels of an immunisation procedure reach about 90 per cent., the remaining 10 per cent. who are not immunised are protected from epidemics. We prevent an epidemic because people with a disease do not come into contact with those who are not immunised against it. That is a valuable benefit of immunisation. If we lose it because people are not having the vaccine or are talked out of taking their immunisation opportunities, everybody in society will be threatened.
Conservative Members talk about choice. That choice should first be rational, considering the advantages or disadvantages that one option might have and another might not. There is scientific evidence that single vaccines are not a rational choice in that respect. Secondly, the exercise of choice in public health terms should not have
24
a detrimental effect on the rest of the population, and choosing single vaccines clearly would have that detrimental effect.
We know, for example, from evidence already being gathered that offering single vaccines results in a fall by two thirds in take-up rates. We know, therefore, that people would not complete single-vaccination courses. We also know from experience of providing a diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis multiple vaccination that offering single vaccinations for those diseases resulted in take-up falling from 80 per cent. to 30 per cent. We know what will happen if the Government change their policy in the way that the Bill suggests: vaccination rates will drop and children will die. The Government are doing the right thing by following the advice that they have been given. I just wish that the hon. Lady and her supporters would be a bit more open minded about looking at that evidence and taking a rational approach.
We have a busy day ahead of us and I have no reason to take up hon. Members' time with a Division. However, it is important to put on the record that the Government are doing what their scientific advisers are unanimously telling them to do. For them to do otherwise would be irresponsible in the extreme. Opposition Members should now and again admit that perhaps the Government are getting all the advice and have taken the right decision.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Julie Kirkbride, Sir Patrick Cormack, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. George Osborne, Mr. Bill Wiggin and Mr. Gregory Barker.

Vaccination of Children (Parental Choice)
  VACCINATION OF CHILDREN (PARENTAL CHOICE)
  Miss Julie Kirkbride accordingly presented a Bill to allow parents to choose to have their child vaccinated separately against measles, mumps and rubella; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed [Bill 122].
Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [18 April].

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,

  (1) That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.

  (2) Subject to paragraph (3) below, this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;

  (b) for refunding an amount of tax;

  (c) for any relief, other than a relief that—

  (i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and

  (ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.

  (3) Paragraph (2) above does not exclude the making of amendments with respect to value added tax providing for relief on the acquisition from another member State of any goods in relation to which, if they were imported from a place outside the member States, relief would be given by an order under section 37 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994.——[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

  Question again proposed.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
3.51 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Budget reflects the fundamental values at the heart of the modern Labour party and the Labour Government: the belief that all human beings are of equal value; the conviction that we all deserve the opportunity to find and fulfil our potential; the belief that together we can achieve far more than we can alone; and the recognition that in our modern knowledge-driven economy, the policies that we need for social justice and equal opportunities are, at one and the same time, the policies that we also need to create a successful dynamic economy. This Budget, like the five earlier Budgets presented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is based fairly and squarely on our commitment to enterprise, prosperity and opportunity for all.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Does the Secretary of State recall appearing with me on a programme called "Powerhouse" on 29 May during the general election campaign? At that time, she said:
"We"ve got no plans at all to raise that ceiling on National Insurance contributions … It is not going to happen."
Can she explain why that has now happened?
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman will recall that reference had been made to Labour's 1992 shadow Budget in which we proposed the complete abolition of the national insurance ceiling and the imposition of full
26
national insurance contributions on all earnings above that ceiling. I remind him that we spent about a week of the election campaign making it clear in response to repeated charges by him and his hon. Friends that we had ruled out any increase in the standard rate and the upper rate of income tax, but that we would not commit ourselves in advance on the hundreds of other rates and allowances that operate within the tax system.
The priority in our first term was to create a strong and stable economy and to get more people into work. We succeeded in those aims to an extent that almost no one thought possible five years ago. Britain is enjoying the lowest inflation and interest rates for 40 years and the lowest public sector debt for 10 years. More than 1,250,000 more people are in work and there are 75,000 more businesses than there were five years ago.
The tough decisions that we made five years ago have been tested in tough times. Of course, we have not been able to cut ourselves off from the downturn in the rest of the world economy, which began with the collapse of the hi-tech sector in the USA. Our manufacturing industry, especially, has suffered with a fall in output of 7 per cent. over the past year, but other countries—our major competitors such as France, Germany, America and, worst of all, Japan—have all experienced the same or even worse difficulties and falls in output in their manufacturing sectors.
Now, we are seeing signs that manufacturing and the world economy as a whole are turning the corner. Indeed, last week the British Chambers of Commerce reported a sharp upturn in business confidence in the manufacturing sector.
The proof of our economic policy in these tough times is that at a time when Japan has been in recession and likewise America, and when the economy of the rest of Europe has hardly grown, Britain has been the fastest growing economy in the G7. Next year, the OECD, the IMF and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research all expect the United Kingdom to be the fastest growing major economy in Europe.
To create greater prosperity for all, we need to do two things. First, we must continue raising the level of employment. Secondly, we must improve the quality of those jobs by raising our productivity.
Sir Robert Smith: The right hon. Lady talks of the need to raise the level of employment. Some of my constituents who work in the North sea oil industry have been made redundant, or are being made redundant, to make their industry more competitive, to attract inward investment, so that it might compete with other fields around the world. Will she explain to them how the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking more money out of that industry for the Treasury will make them more competitive?
Ms Hewitt: That sector and every other sector of our economy is under constant pressure to he and to remain competitive. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that profits are high in the North sea oil sector and we have been examining for years the fairest system of taxation for that sector. Alongside the increase in the special rate of corporation tax, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last week the introduction of 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances for investment

27
in North sea oil. After consultation, my right. hon Friend has set a date for abolishing royalty payments, which the hon. Gentleman will know are especially unpopular within the sector.
Sir Robert Smith: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Ms Hewitt: No. I shall make some more progress.
Our achievement in delivering economic stability and rising employment must now be matched by a new achievement in narrowing and then closing the productivity gap.
We have many outstanding companies, both large and small. Our best manufacturers are among the best in the world. However, across the economy as a whole, we still lag behind. Every hour that is worked in Germany, France and America produces 25 per cent. more than an hour worked in Britain. That difference is not because British workers lack drive or determination. Indeed, working hours in the UK are longer than those for full-time workers in the rest of Europe. However, thanks to decades of underinvestment—the direct result of decades of economic instability—too many British workers have to do without the modern tools and technology that our competitors enjoy. Far too many lack even the basic skills that they need to succeed in the modern work force. Too many employees work in firms that are failing even to keep up with best practice in their sector, let alone to lead the way in new products and new production processes.
This productivity gap may sound like an abstraction but it directly affects us all every day of our lives. If we could create wealth as effectively as the US, we could grow our economy by an extra £6,000 a year for every man, woman and child. We could deliver a better standard of living, better public services and more leisure time. That is the scale of the productivity and prosperity challenge.
I shall refer to the Budget measures that seek to meet the challenge by promoting enterprise and innovation, which are the key drivers of productivity. I shall begin by focusing particularly on the impact of small firms; in terms of job creation, small and medium-sized enterprises are vital to our country.
Between 1995 and 1999, businesses created almost 2.5 million extra jobs. It was small and medium-sized businesses that created 85 per cent. of those new jobs. We can forecast quite confidently that in the next 10 years, it will be those small businesses—indeed, there will be almost 1 million more of them—that create the new jobs in our economy. That is why this Budget builds on what we have already done to encourage entrepreneurs and support start-up and small businesses. We are taking 150,000 small companies out of corporation tax altogether and cutting the starting rate of corporation tax from 10 per cent. to zero on the first £10,000 of profits. We are cutting tax for another 300,000 companies by reducing the small firms" rate of corporation tax, which is already the lowest in Europe, by another penny in the pound.
I know that it has been a real frustration for many small businesses—hon. Members will have spoken to them directly—that because they are not incorporated, they do not benefit from corporation tax cuts, although they are benefiting from other changes. That is why I shall announce later in this Session the Government's response
28
to the report of the company law review and its admirable recommendation of a complete overhaul of company law based on the principle of thinking small first. By removing the unnecessary costs and complexity of incorporation, we will help owner-managers to choose the right structure for their businesses and enable more businesses to benefit from those lower corporation tax rates.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Hewitt: My goodness—un embarras de richesses! I give way to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).
Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her good choice in selecting who to give way to. While she rightly mentions benefits to smaller businesses, she will be aware that in my part of the world, there are many manufacturers connected with the automotive industry that have profits of more than £1.5 million—an amount that sounds large, but is not a lot in terms of the capital that they employ. She will know that they will not benefit from cuts in corporation tax, but will suffer a 1 per cent. increase on employers" national insurance. What can she do to ensure that those firms, two of which have already gone out of business in Dagenham and Luton, can continue to thrive or at least survive in the west midlands?
Ms Hewitt: As the hon. Gentleman will he aware, about £3 billion of new investment has been going into the car industry in the past few years. We are seeing considerable success in many of our motor car companies, which feeds through to business in the supply chain. Many of the supplier companies are limited companies. The average small company will see its corporation tax bills reduced by £700 a year, almost matching the increase in national insurance contributions on the wage bill. I shall return to national insurance contributions in a moment.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. She has answered one of the questions that I was about to ask by telling us that the national insurance increase will exceed any benefit from a reduction in corporation tax. Furthermore, is it not the case that corporation tax is payable only on profit, while national insurance has to be paid up front, whether or not a company makes a profit? That is what is damaging to the small business sector.
Ms Hewitt: I shall come in a moment to the issue of national insurance contributions and why they are the fairest way of funding the long-term increase in national health service resources that almost everybody in our country—I am not sure about Opposition Members—agrees is needed.
Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend will know that I have a particular interest in small business. Does she agree that one of the key drivers for improving the productivity of small business is the investment that we are putting into health? If there is one thing that keeps back a small company with a few people acting with enterprise within it is somebody being sick,

29
in pain and perhaps unable to get an operation. This strategic investment in the health service will boost enormously the productivity and output of small business in Britain.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know well that the decision of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on employers" national insurance contributions came as an unwelcome surprise to many businesses. As I have just said, however, almost everyone—including almost every business person I have spoken to in the last week—agrees that, as a country, we need to put more investment into health care and to reform it. The British Chambers of Commerce, for instance, has estimated that more than 200 million working days are lost through illness every year in Britain. That is about 400 times more than the number of days lost to strikes last year. The Institute of Directors says that an efficient health care sector is as vital a part of the infrastructure for business to survive as education and transport. The CBI, reflecting the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) has just made, has estimated that absence from work due to sickness costs British businesses nearly £11 billion a year.
Some Conservative Members have said that we should have looked instead at private insurance to fund increased health costs. If we look at the United States of America, what do we find? The average premium for private health insurance is £100 per family. That is an appalling imposition on businesses, when they have to pick up those costs, and people on very low wages or who are not in work at all get very poor-quality health care. Conservative Members have also said, "Let us have social insurance." When we look at France, which we are told is a model to emulate, we see employers paying 12.8 per cent. contributions for health care alone, never mind what they are paying for unemployment and pension provision. That represents an average of £60 per employee per week. That would be a real imposition on business. We are very clear that there is a strong business case for better health care, and that the best way to meet the long-term need for increased funding for the national health service is to have most of the NHS funded from general taxation and to have this additional funding, provided by a modest 1 per cent. increase in national contributions, paid by all contributors.
Regulation and administrative burdens are an issue for many who run small businesses, and a favourite theme of Conservative Members. This Budget includes measures that have been widely welcomed by business and by business organisations. By increasing the VAT threshold, for instance, we shall take another 4,000 smaller businesses out of the VAT system altogether. More importantly, the radical simplification of VAT that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has introduced will benefit 700,000 businesses.
We are also acting to simplify payroll administration. The review by Patrick Carter concluded that electronic payroll filing was much the best way to cut through the difficulties faced by small employers in coping with the complexity of payrolls.
Mr. Mark Prisk: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Chancellor's response to the Carter report will simplify the payroll burden, but not reduce it by a single jot?
Ms Hewitt: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman has a look at electronic filing systems, including those available directly from the internet. The fact is that they will save hours of work for employers who currently use manual payroll systems. They will be able to concentrate on getting on with their business, instead of on administration. They will have greater certainty that the payroll has been calculated accurately, and they will face fewer inquiries from the Inland Revenue into their end-of-year returns. That will mean less administration, less time spent on form filling, and more time to run the business. We have also extended the time given to the smallest employers to comply with the proposals for electronic filing. Firms with fewer than 50 employees will have until 2009–10 to complete the move to electronic filing of their returns, although they will get the incentive payment of £250 from 2004–05 onwards.
Brian Cotter: I hear what the Secretary of State is saying about payroll tax, and I agree with colleagues that she is not helping enormously. Will she consider the impact assessment of the Budget on small businesses? Most people in business say that it will add to bureaucracy and the red tape burden. Nothing significant has been taken away.
Ms Hewitt: Of course we shall publish a regulatory impact assessment for each measure and of course we have already consulted many small businesses on payroll administration. It is clear that effective software dealing with all the different parts of the payroll and contributions and taxes makes life much simpler.
On top of those measures, I shall shortly consult on a national strategy for business start-ups, including proposals to make it much easier for people who are setting up a business to find out exactly what help is available to them and exactly what the Government need from them.
The Budget also takes smaller combined heat and power generators out of the climate change levy—a measure that is particularly welcomed by many of my hon. Friends—and exempts the use of coal mine methane for electricity generation. Indeed, it freezes the levy itself.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: My right hon. Friend is arguing that the climate change levy may be ignored or set aside for energy generation that does not create greenhouse gases. Acting on that precedent, when will we get movement in the nuclear sector?
Ms Hewitt: The announcement that we made in the Budget was welcomed, not least by Corus, with which I spent last Friday morning. The tax treatment of nuclear energy is considered in the recent performance and innovation unit energy policy report and we shall examine it as we prepare the White Paper in response to that review.
As we support enterprise, so we must encourage innovation. Our country has an extraordinary history of innovation, invention and scientific success. We have 1 per cent. of the world's population, but we make nearly 5 per cent. of the world's investment in science and produce 8 per cent. of the world's scientific papers, 9 per cent. of citations and 10 per cent. of Nobel prize winners. Last Friday, with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber

31
Valley (Judy Mallaber), I saw the difference that effective innovation makes to the bottom line when we visited Denby Pottery, the Derbyshire ceramics company.
People are all too quick to write ceramics off as one of the traditional manufacturing industries that supposedly have no future. Denby Pottery has existed for almost 200 years, but half its revenue comes from products that did not exist four years ago. By investing in design, marketing and the creation of new products and by driving through production process efficiencies, it has pushed revenues up from £12 million 10 years ago, to £38 million last year and still growing.
Denby Pottery is a successful, innovative, profitable business, but we do not always put our innovative ability to such good effect. British manufacturers invest less in developing new products than manufacturers in competitor countries and we are in the bottom half of the European league for manufacturing turnover accounted for by new or improved products. We also lag behind our international counterparts in resources devoted to innovation.
Over the next three years, the science budget is to increase by an average of 7 per cent. a year in real terms, which will help to overcome the underfunding and neglect of our science infrastructure during the Conservative years. We have also multiplied threefold the commercial spin-offs from universities, turning "Invented in Britain" into "Made in Britain". As a result, we are beginning to see the signs of a brain gain rather than a brain drain.
The research and development tax credit that we introduced last year for small and medium-sized firms will be matched by the extension of that incentive to large companies—one of the most important recommendations made by the CBI and the TUC in their joint work on productivity.
Mr. Mark Todd: Those measures are welcomed in particular by large companies such as Rolls-Royce, which employs many people in my constituency. However, they expect increased state research and development funding in areas in which they are most interested, as they must compete against competitor companies in the United States, Canada, Germany and France that receive such funding.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, I have been examining investment in R and D in the aerospace industry in the United States and in Canada. I hope that in next few years we will be able to increase direct Government support for R and D, as well as private sector investment.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: The Conservative Government discouraged research and development through a lack of incentives. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Governments such as the Canadian Government stepped in, and R and D moved from this country to Canada and other countries.
Ms Hewitt: I am certainly aware of the Conservative Government's neglect of the importance of research and development, and their complete contempt for the manufacturing sector. [Interruption.] It is true. Despite
32
incentives from Canada, we continue to have a higher rate of investment in R and D—just—than they have in Canada. We must increase that, and the new R and D tax credit for larger companies will make a real difference.
The way to greater prosperity for all of us is to create more jobs and to raise the quality of jobs that people have. A crucial part of the challenge facing us is to extend opportunities for enterprise and employment, especially to people in our most disadvantaged communities. Like many of my hon. Friends, I see in my constituency the devastating effect on people's lives of the disappearance of traditional manufacturing jobs. We all know of communities that have been blighted by long-term unemployment and poverty, by illness and family breakdown, by crime and drug taking, and by a shocking level of educational disadvantage. All of us, at least on the Labour Benches, know that it does not have to be like that.
I am particularly proud of what the Government have begun to achieve by investing in disadvantaged communities. With the new deal for communities, the single regeneration budget and programmes such as sure start, we are giving the real experts in disadvantaged communities—the people who actually live there—the resources to change things.
Above all, people living in the poorest communities need economic opportunities. They need skills, jobs and local businesses. That is why I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement in the Budget of further support for enterprise and investment in disadvantaged areas, the abolition of stamp duty on non-residential property transfers and the creation of a new community investment tax credit.
I am also delighted that my right hon. Friend has recognised the role that social enterprises can play in neighbourhood regeneration. He has made it clear that the tax credit will apply to co-operatives and community-owned enterprises as well as for-profit businesses.
Finally, I shall refer to our policies to make it easier for women and men to balance work and family, which, as my right hon. Friend said, is a crucial challenge in a world in which the work force have been transformed. Now, almost half the work force are women. In the past 10 years, men's employment rates have stayed much the same, whereas those of women, especially mothers, have grown rapidly. Indeed, in the past 10 years there has been an almost 10 per cent. growth rate in employment for all women, and the employment rate of women whose youngest child is under five has grown by a third over the same period. That is the biggest increase in the rate of women's employment in our country since wartime.
In an economy that depends above all on the skills and talents of our people, we must not allow old-fashioned ways of organising work to damage the potential for economic success. That is why we must make it much easier for parents to choose how they balance bringing up children with earning a living. We need to make it easier for parents who have been unable to find any work to start earning a living. We also need to make it easier for parents in work, especially those working long hours, to spend more time with their families. Perhaps all of us in the House who are parents should declare an interest in that issue.
We are therefore introducing a mentoring service for lone parents who want to return to work so that there is one person to offer them confidential support and advice

33
in finding a job. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has ensured that a lone parent working part-time will have a guaranteed income of £179 a week and, on top, help with the cost of eligible child care.
Similarly, for mothers who want to stay at home, the working tax credit will give a guaranteed income to the family with children and only one earner. To ensure that the cost of child care does not deter parents from returning to work, there be will a new child tax credit from next year, available to families earning up to £58,000 a year.
We recognise that every family has different needs, and in recognition of the need of families to make choices we have extended the child care tax credit element of the working tax credit to those who use approved child care in their own home. That will especially help the parents of disabled children and parents who work outside conventional working hours.
The Budget is designed to extend prosperity and opportunity to men and women and to families and communities throughout our country. It will help to raise productivity and to bring greater prosperity for all of us. I commend it to the House.
4.21 pm
Mr. John Whittingdale: As I listened to the Secretary of State, it appeared that she was talking about a completely different Budget from the one that was delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week. It was certainly not one that many people in the business community will recognise.
I begin by reminding the House of the Budget that the Chancellor delivered just over a year ago, in which he announced tax cuts of £3.6 billion for this financial year and of £4.1 billion for the next financial year. They were, he said,
"tax cuts we can afford".—[Official Report, 7 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 308.]
Just in case there was any doubt, on the following day the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the Budget contained "prudent tax cuts".
What happened between then and now? The answer, of course, is that the last Budget came a few months before a general election and the present one has come nine months after a general election. During that election Ministers repeatedly denied that they had any plans to put up tax. The Labour manifesto for that election stated that the basic and top rates of income tax would be left unchanged. It was an election during which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has already reminded the House, the Secretary of State said that Labour had no plans to raise the ceiling on national insurance contributions; she said that it was not going to happen.
Nine months later, in the Chancellor's first Budget of this Parliament, he has raised taxes by more than £6 billion by adding 1 per cent. to the amount of tax paid by every person in a job. The president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation said that
"there is no getting away from the fact that we are going to have a 41 per cent top rate of tax from next year onwards."
The Chartered Association of Certified Accountants said that
"he has also effectively raised the top rate of income tax to 41 per cent and broken the Labour party election promise."
34
That is the tax rise that, according to the Secretary of State, was not going to happen.
Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend realise that the situation is worse than that? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked whether there might be a further rise in national insurance, he said that he could neither confirm nor deny that that might happen.
Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is correct. We shall look forward with even greater trepidation to future Budgets under the Chancellor.
Given what has happened, it is no wonder that every poll shows that people think that Ministers have lied and that the Government are guilty of breaking their promises. Having broken their promise, we can no doubt expect further increases in the levy in future years, as my hon. Friend has just suggested. Having removed the upper earnings ceiling, it will be all too easy for the Government gradually to continue to increase the amount that will be charged. Normally, I would ask the Secretary of State to give an undertaking that that will not occur hut, given her track record on that issue, I see little point in doing so.
Of course, the Budget did contain some good news; indeed, the Budget speech consisted almost entirely of good news. Some 10 columns of Hansard are devoted to spending commitments and tax cuts, yet tax rises totalling more than £8.5 billion take up less than half a column. The Chancellor spent more time announcing a £15 million cut for microbreweries than he did on the freezing of personal allowances, which will cost taxpayers an extra £700 million. Even then, he got it wrong. The sales manager of the Crouch Vale brewery—its product is much enjoyed in my own constituency—said that,
"if we are expected to pass on the tax reduction to customers in time for the World Cup then he has misunderstood everything he has been told over the past fifteen years."
Of course, there are some measures in this Budget that we support. The tax credit for research and development by large companies is welcome, even though this is the third time that it has been announced. The cut in corporation tax for small firms is also good news, even if it is of little use to those that happen not to be making a profit. Small firms have campaigned for a long time for a flat rate for calculating VAT payments, although they may be less enthusiastic when they discover that, initially, it will apply only to a limited number of businesses. The amount of red tape and form filling that it will save is already in some doubt. One commentator, writing in Accountancyweb, said:
"In practice, there is only one way to treat this new scheme, which is a bit of useless spin produced by people who have absolutely no idea of what they are talking about, and can't think from the requirements of one tax to another."
The Chancellor also boasted in his speech about measures to boost the use of combined heat and power, and about his welcome decision to exempt CHP from the climate change levy. However, the Secretary of State, who has referred to those measures, will be aware that that will not be enough to put right the damage already done to CHP. In the past 18 months, investment in CHP has collapsed. Four major companies have pulled out of the industry and 1,500 jobs have been lost because of the way in which CHP is penalised under the new electricity trading arrangements. The Budget has not changed that, and until the problem is addressed there seems little likelihood that the Government's CHP targets will be met.

35
Although one part of the energy sector was indeed helped by the Budget, another was most certainly not. The decision to impose a new 10 per cent. tax on oil and gas companies" profits has caused horror throughout the industry. According to the Red Book, the cost to oil producers will rise to £600 million by 2004, but others have already estimated that the cost is likely to be far higher. According to a forecast by Wood Mackenzie, it will rise to more than £1 billion by 2005.
As has already been predicted, the tax increase will discourage investment. The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association has said that many small companies considering recovery projects on mature oil fields may now have second thoughts. Moreover, the increase was almost entirely unexpected by the industry, and it undermines all the good work done through the pilot programme to establish long-term confidence in the industry. Indeed, I should be interested to know if the Secretary of State is willing to confirm that her Department learned of the proposed tax increase only the day before the Budget was announced. Yet again, it appears that the Department of Trade and Industry has no say in decisions affecting industry, which are taken in the Treasury.
As a sop to the industry, the Chancellor also promised to abolish North sea oil royalties, subject to consultation. However, it is not clear why consultation is necessary, given that the industry has unanimously called for abolition for a long time.
Sir Robert Smith: Interestingly, in choosing to trot out the same lines as the Chancellor, the Secretary of State failed to recognise that he is taking away revenue, which makes an operation more expensive. On royalties relief, where a particular project becomes difficult to proceed with, exemption can already be applied for.
Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman, who represents a Scottish constituency that is bound to be extremely badly affected by this measure, is absolutely right. Those in the industry will be alarmed to hear that the Chancellor has been talking about consulting on abolishing royalty payments, but they will be even more alarmed when they read the Red Book because they will find that figures for receipts of royalty payments continue in the projected revenues until 2007. At best, that suggests that the Chancellor does not envisage that the consultation will be carried out very swiftly.
It seems pretty clear that the only reason for the consultation period is to provide an excuse to defer abolition. It is no wonder that those in the industry have reacted extremely badly; they feel that they have delivered their side of the bargain in terms of investment and that, in return, they have been clobbered by a totally unexpected 33 per cent. tax increase, which is bound to damage confidence, investment and jobs.
Not only the oil industry, but every employer in the land was clobbered in the Budget. For 50 minutes, they heard the Chancellor distribute favours in all directions. Then, in the last 10 minutes, they got hit with a tax increase of nearly £4 billion. Even before the Budget, industry was pointing to the damage done to our competitiveness by the tax increases that have taken place under this Government.
36
The Confederation of British Industry has calculated that the tax burden on business has increased by £29 billion as a result of the tax measures in the Chancellor's first five Budgets. It has said that, from having been one of the lowest taxed countries in Europe, the burden on business in the United Kingdom is now higher than that faced by most of our key competitors and that, of our five top trading countries, only France now imposes a bigger tax burden on business—and that was before the latest increase.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If the Government have rendered such huge damage to industry, can the hon. Gentleman explain why we have the lowest unemployment in the developed world and why we were the only country to weather the last global slowdown and still manage to keep our economy growing?
Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman refers to our unemployment record; I merely ask him whether he thinks a tax on the payroll—a tax on jobs—will help to improve our record on creating jobs and reducing unemployment.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Can the hon. Gentleman also explain why the number of unemployed people in his constituency has fallen from 1,630 in 1997 to 720 now—a 55 per cent. cut? Does he not welcome the cut in unemployment in his constituency?
Mr. Whittingdale: Of course I welcome the cut in unemployment, especially in my constituency, but I shall also explain to my constituents and those of every other hon. Member that the Government have now put a direct tax on their jobs, which will make it more likely that they will lose them in future.
The CBI said before the Budget that the priority should be to cut business tax. Digby Jones, the director general of the CBI, said that the Budget would be a defining moment in the Chancellor's relationship with business, and he was absolutely right. Once again, the Chancellor has chosen to impose the single biggest tax increase on business and, moreover, he has done so in the most damaging way possible.
Instead of taxing profits, the Chancellor has chosen to tax jobs, by imposing an extra 1 per cent. in tax on the wages bill of every company in the land, and it does not matter whether the business is making a profit or a loss, or whether it is large or small. Even unincorporated businesses or simple one-man operations will have to pay more as a result of that measure. It is hard to think of a measure that will do more to damage industry's profitability and competitiveness.
Mr. Prisk: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend mention the self-employed and unincorporated. Not one word about the self-employed—all 3 million of them—came from the Secretary of State or the Chancellor. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a disgrace, especially for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
Mr. Whittingdale: I entirely agree, and many self-employed people will think it particularly mean that they were also clobbered as a result of that measure. The self-employed have to bear ever-increasing burdens and none of the employment measures that go through the House helps them. They have had a steadily harder time

37
under the Government and the Budget will make things considerably worse, yet the Chancellor had the cheek to say that the Budget was about building a Britain of greater enterprise. So what did those who actually work in enterprise think of the Budget? The CBI said that there will be deep dismay at a tax burden that impacts directly on the cost of employing people at a time when UK competitiveness is being put to the test. The British Chambers of Commerce, which was quoted at least twice by the Secretary of State, called the measure a step backwards, and its head of policy has said:
"Is it a Budget for enterprise? No, it is not".
The Federation of Small Businesses says it is a tragedy that the self-employed will also pay higher national insurance contributions, adding that
"this undermines any attempt the Chancellor has made to help the low paid."
The Forum of Private Business calls the measure a
"£2 billion sickener for small firms that will destroy jobs."
One analyst has calculated that company profits will be cut by as much as 4 per cent. A small firm employing 10 people will face an increased national insurance bill of about £25,000.
Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Whittingdale: I will give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) first, then to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Bryant: Such generosity—I thank the hon. Gentleman. Would any of those whom he is quoting prefer to pay for the national health service through American-style private insurance or French-style social insurance, which would probably be far more expensive for business? What does the hon. Gentleman himself think?
Mr. Whittingdale: Once again, the hon. Gentleman displays the wholly closed mind of Labour Members. They believe that the only way in which to put more money into the NHS is through general taxation. The reason why some other countries have better standards of health care and better standards of performance in their health services than us is that they spend more money on those services, but not money from the taxpayer. We have a lot to learn from such countries, and I shall not follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer by closing my mind and refusing to accept that anything could be improved.
Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend realise that the national insurance premium is a double whammy? I am told by the leader of Lichfield district council that it will cost an additional £78,000 to employ people in that small district council. Such increases across the country will inevitably cause an increase in council tax payments.
Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is right. My local authority. Essex county council, estimates that the measure will add £4.5 million to its wages bill, which will inevitably lead to an increase in council tax next year. Council tax payers will pay twice as a result of the Budget. Of course, businesses and local authorities are not the only ones affected: the health service, police
38
authorities and local education authorities all face a huge increase in their wages bill as a result of the Budget, which will deprive the public services that the Chancellor claims he wants to help.
Ms Meg Munn: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Institute of Directors" comments on the Budget which describe it as having laudable aims and containing several worthwhile tax measures? The IOD is one of the organisations that he appears to have missed out.
Mr. Whittingdale: I do not disagree that the Budget has laudable aims; I just do not think that they will work. The IOD also says that without fundamental reform of the NHS, simply pouring in more public money will not lead to any improvement. On that point, I entirely agree with the IOD.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I agree that the reason why Germany and France have better health care is that they spend more money. How would the hon. Gentleman produce the extra resources that the health service and other public services require?
Mr. Whittingdale: The difference between this country and other European countries is that they spend more on their health services but the money does not come from the taxpayer. They have a far greater private sector and more private money going into their health services, with the result that they are able to spend more overall on health care. That is a model that we might do well to emulate.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Where does the money for private insurance and health care come from if not from taxpayers?
Mr. Whittingdale: The difference is that the taxpayer chooses to pay it. No one is compelled to put money into private health insurance: people choose to do it. That is something I thoroughly commend.
Almost as bad news as what was in the Budget was what was not in it. There was nothing to help to relieve manufacturing industry from the burden of the climate change levy. Indeed, the Budget tore away the fig leaf that Ministers have used in the past to defend the levy—that it is overall revenue neutral due to a compensating cut of 0.3 per cent. in national insurance contributions. It was never revenue neutral for almost all manufacturing companies; now they will have to pay the levy as well as higher national insurance contributions.
No wonder the director general of the Engineering Employers Federation said:
"Did the Chancellor help manufacturing? He did the opposite. He has done something negative at the worst time. It is the wrong thing to do."
Despite what the Secretary of State said, nor did the Budget do anything about the burden of red tape and regulation. On top of the £29 billion of extra tax that business now has to pay, the CBI has estimated that employment legislation alone has added another £12 billion. The latest red tape audit by the British Chambers of Commerce puts the total cost at more than £15 billion. Last week, I received a written answer stating that in 2001 the amount of time spent by businesses filling

39
in forms issued by the Office for National Statistics was estimated to be about 617,000 hours—and that takes no account of all the other forms issued by Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue and all the other Government agencies.
The result is that our international competitiveness is being slowly eroded. Having been a low tax, lightly regulated economy, over the past five years we have steadily become a highly taxed, highly regulated economy. We are no longer automatically the first choice for investment and our position in the international league tables of competitiveness is slipping. In the table produced by the World Economic Forum we have fallen from fourth to twelfth, in the Heritage Foundation's table we have slipped from third to ninth, and in the Centre for Management Development's table we have fallen from ninth to nineteenth. The Budget will do nothing to change that; in fact, it will make the position much worse.
Last Wednesday, the Chancellor claimed that the Budget would help enterprise, and this afternoon the Secretary of State said that it demonstrated the Government's commitment to enterprise. I can do no better than quote the economics correspondent of The Sunday Times, who said:
"With a tax hike on business like that, Brown's sixth Budget was about as enterprise-friendly as Stalin's sixth five-year plan."
The Budget represents a betrayal of industry and shows that the Government have learned nothing. They intend to go on pouring public money into the health service without undertaking the reforms that are vital if there is to be any chance of real improvement, and, yet again under this Government, it is business that has to pick up the tab.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate, and that applies from now on.
4.43 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I suppose that it is inevitable and right that the debate on the Budget, certainly on the Labour Benches and among the public, has concentrated on the Chancellor's thinking on the crisis in the national health service and his proposals to deal with it.
Beyond the massive refinancing of the health service—the Chancellor's most welcome injection of £40 billion—lie other questions, which I should like to address in the short time that I have. I hope to be able to comment on the importance of training, on globalisation and on wealth and redistribution. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) could not find time to cover any of those issues, but perhaps we shall hear Opposition Members" views in the course of the debate.
First, I want to deal with health. I realise that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford is being disturbed by one of his colleagues, but as I am going to refer to him, and am even prepared in a 10-minute speech to give way to him, perhaps he could give me a few moments of his time.
40
I believe that Government's responsibility to industry and commerce is to set the climate for discharging responsibilities to the people of this country, including providing essential services such as the NHS. A healthy approach to the economy such as that taken by the Government means that we tackle the problems of manufacturing, consider the opportunities of a technological age, and take our chances in marketing to spread our products throughout Europe and the rest of the world. In doing that, we should give ourselves the opportunity to invest in the health service and other services in a way that has not been done previously.
Does the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford genuinely believe that large and small industrialists and companies, concerned—as we all are—about the health service, are so unfair and limited in their view that they ignore the Government's economic successes? Does he want to return to the days of high interest rates and inflation, when negative equity was a regular factor? That did not help anyone's health or British industry. He cited the CBI. I put it to him bluntly that he should consider the problem of absenteeism from which industry in Britain suffers. One newspaper today reported that it costs the country £23 billion a year.
The hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Digby Jones of the CBI, and made his views on national insurance contributions clear. The country is entitled to know where the Conservative party stands. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have had time since the Budget to think about it. We know that they do not like it, but I will give way now if the hon. Gentleman answers a question. If the Conservative party forms a Government, will it repeal the measures in the Budget? There is no response; I shall explain why. He knows that not only the country but, according to the Sunday press, to which he referred, the vast majority of Conservative supporters support the Budget. There is therefore no incentive for him to repeal the Chancellor's measures.
Does the hon. Gentleman believe, even in the context of the comments of Mr. Digby Jones, that people do not notice that the Government have dealt with low income earners, for example, by introducing the minimum wage? But are the Opposition considering those in the top income brackets? There is not much sympathy for the fact that, for example, the principal of St. Andrews university, who earns £145,000 a year and will get a rise of 11.5 per cent., will be asked to pay a limited amount to help our health service. The hon. Gentleman, through his comments and his quotes from Mr. Digby Jones, showed that some people live in a time warp. It does not help to talk Britain down. The G7 nations would not be impressed with a member country that did not believe in investing in the health service, which is so vital to every aspect of our nation's welfare.
I want to deal briefly with globalisation and wealth distribution. How effectively is the United Kingdom being prepared to compete and prosper in globalised markets? How effectively is wealth being redistributed? I believe that the British people are fair-minded, and the answers to my questions tell us something about the economy and society that we are becoming.
I desperately want the Government to continue to challenge poverty at every level and for every group in society. That includes the poverty of ambition, which is why I want to focus on the crucial issue of training. I welcome the fact that there has been a growing and

41
intensifying recognition within Government of what the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has called the nation's long-term failure to raise skills.
Even after so many years of strong and focused regional policy in the United Kingdom—and I see this in my own county of Lanarkshire—it remains the case that not enough of tomorrow's skills are being put into the hands and the heads of tomorrow's work force. In some regions, only around 10 per cent. of the labour force have degree-level qualifications, while 20 per cent. have no formal qualifications at all. I do not see that as being competitive, so the Government are right to invest in education again and again.
As a matter of priority, the Government have to address what is now known, in the inevitable jargon of the times, as the low skill equilibrium. That is all the more true if we are to make a decision on the euro, and the Chancellor hinted at that in his Budget speech. One of the arguments about the benefits that could arise from that relates to the commitment to improve our skills and training. We would not gain the full benefit of harmonisation if we did not set ourselves that priority.
I welcome the initiatives in the Budget, and I am not alone in that, despite the views of the Opposition. Mike Brewer and Alissa Goodman of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
"If the Government had chosen to monitor a poverty line fixed at its 1996 level, instead of a relative one, it would now be able to claim that child poverty had fallen by around 1.3 million."
That is a tremendous achievement. A lot more remains to be done, but on that and on many other aspects of his Budget and his policy, the Chancellor is entitled to be congratulated and we are entitled to feel proud. We are entitled to commend the Budget to the British people and, when we debate international development on Thursday, to examine the lessons that we offer, in our priorities, to the rest of the world.
4.52 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: After five years, we know the Chancellor's style of Budget-giving. His Budgets are always delivered with great flair, eloquence and style. There is a lot of good news and the first impressions are always very good. It is only after looking at the small print that we begin to see the problems.
I want to try to strike a balance between the good news, which the Budget undoubtedly contained, and some of the negatives. The Budget contained important themes that Liberal Democrat Members have already acknowledged. We strongly support the increase in tax finance for the NHS, and we stick by that. We support the principle, which the Government have belatedly acknowledged, that personal taxation has to rise to some degree to pay for that. The Budget contained what is effectively a 1p rise in income tax, although the measure is not called that, and we have endorsed that.
It is also important to acknowledge that probably the most important single determinant of business behaviour is the overall macro-economic climate, and that is very good. There is low inflation and unemployment, and that is at least partly attributable to good monetary and fiscal stability. All that is good news, and we acknowledge it.
There was, however, major sleight of hand in the Budget. As soon as most of us opened the Red Book and saw the first big table, it was apparent where the money
42
was coming from. Of the £6 billion net increase in taxation, approximately £4 billion comes from business, almost all in the employers" national insurance charge. We need to be clear about what that tax is. It is not a tax on business men and women; it is not a tax on profits; it is not a tax on shareholders; and it is not a tax on wealth. It is a tax specifically on business costs and labour costs. It is a very bad and damaging tax that will have far-reaching consequences.
I have the luxury that the Conservative spokesman does not have of being able to suggest an alternative way of funding the Government's proposals. We suggested explicitly that the Government could have raised an equivalent amount of taxation by increasing the marginal rate of tax for people who earn more than £100,000 a year to 50 per cent. That, of course, would have taxed not merely salary incomes but investment incomes, which this Budget has not touched. I would be interested to hear why Labour Back Benchers regard that as inferior to taxing labour costs, which is essentially what this Budget entails.
The reaction to the Budget in the popular press and Parliament has been something of a phoney war. The argument has been that, through the Budget, the Government are taxing middle-income middle England. In some ways, I am reminded of a professional wrestling match in which one fighter gives the impression of a vicious kick at the head of his opponent, who pretends to writhe in agony on the ground—in practice, it has not happened. The Government have not launched a lethal blow to middle-income taxpayers, let alone upper-income taxpayers. They have launched a very severe tax burden on business costs.
It is important to think through logically what will happen. What are the effects of an increase in employers" national insurance contributions? Enterprises in the south-east of England that operate in a buoyant economy and do not compete internationally—most of the service trade—will pass on national insurance costs in higher prices, because they can shift the burden. In the overall economy, that will mean that prices will be a little higher than they would otherwise be. Consequently, when the Bank of England considers the inflation outlook, it will be less likely to cut interest rates and more likely to raise them, thereby making the problems of the exchange rate and the manufacturing sector worse than they would otherwise be. That is a very indirect consequence.
The most damaging consequence will be for manufacturing industry, because it operates in a traded environment with narrow margins and fierce price competition. Employers in the sector cannot pass on higher labour costs to their consumers: they have to absorb them, and they can do that in one of two ways. They can cut wages, so that a pay increase of 4 per cent. would become one of 3 per cent., resulting in lower real wages for their employees. Alternatively, and this is the more likely consequence, they can absorb them through higher redundancies. The main direct consequence of the Budget is that the increased tax on jobs, will cause higher rates of job displacement or job losses in the traded part of the economy—manufacturing—than would otherwise have been the case. That is the palpable conclusion.
Mr. Iain Luke: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the growth in the economy predicted by the Chancellor? Instead of a shrinking

43
economy, in which such labour costs will have an impact, we will have an expanding economy, in which they can be contained by increased growth.
Dr. Cable: The logic is exactly the opposite. By making business less profitable and increasing its costs, the growth will be less than the Government have anticipated. One of the other sleights of hand in the Budget—to which I had not intended to refer, but the hon. Gentleman has prompted me—is the Government's assumption of a growth rate 0.5 per cent. higher than was otherwise the case. Much of the Budget arithmetic hinges on that very optimistic assumption. If one of the consequences of increasing taxation on business is to reduce investment and expansion of output in industry, it will wholly undermine the arithmetic on which the Budget is based.
Mr. Bill Tynan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, last year, according to the Confederation of British Industry report, £11 billion was lost through days of sickness? Does he agree that improving the health service will dramatically reduce that burden on business, and that it could be a benefit to business if we succeed?
Dr. Cable: Of course we favour a better NHS and more health spending, as I made clear at the beginning of my speech. We entirely support that and have made suggestions about how it should be financed.
I sense from several interventions by Labour Members that they do not appreciate the fact that business already makes substantial direct contributions to the cost of funding public services, including the NHS. In international terms, there is already a relatively high national insurance charge on employers, who pay mandatory and voluntary sickness benefit. The business sector already makes a substantial contribution to the costs described by the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). The Budget will have perverse consequences if it undermines the economy, creates more unemployment and weakens economic growth, which is why business groups have been critical of it.
I know that some hon. Members wince at the mention of the Confederation of British Industry, but in many respects it has been supportive of, and complimentary about, the Government. The old days when the CBI supported the Tories and the Trades Union Congress supported the Labour party are long gone. In many ways, the CBI has been indulgent of the Government; its anger on this occasion is genuine and, importantly, has been echoed by small business groups such as the Federation of Small Businesses. Two thirds of the increased revenue from the employers" national insurance charge will come from the small business sector and the self-employed, to whom reference has already been made. This is not a tax on big business, but very much a tax on small business.
The taxation on business does not involve only employers" national insurance charges, although they are by far the most important component. There are two more elements, one of which has been mentioned: taxation of the oil industry. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) knows much more about that than I do and I hope that, if he
44
catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will talk about it. However, I worked for some years in the oil industry, so I know something of the complexity of the problem.
The fundamental issue about oil taxation is that when oil prices are high—they are relatively high at the moment—the oil industry earns excess profit—that is, economic rent. It is reasonable that some of that excess profit in periods of high prices should go to the Exchequer; anybody in the oil or mining industry accepts that principle. However, how can that be accomplished sensibly to maintain incentives for new investment and exploration? The system should be transparent, clear and up front. When a retrospective windfall tax is imposed on the oil industry, incentives are damaged. If the industry knows in advance that it has to pay a percentage of its excess profits to the Treasury, it can factor that into its investment calculations. When decisions such as the one to impose a tax are made, the) only undermine confidence in the country.
I trust that the Department of Trade and Industry is now looking in detail at the final element of oil taxation. My understanding is that the new tax applies to existing fields, which are relatively high-cost in that the oil industry has to invest substantially, both in new technology and to get the oil out. We need to study the small print, but the tax may seriously undermine efforts to increase yields from declining fields in the North sea. The Government may unthinkingly have done quite a lot of damage to the economics of the North sea. I am sure that we shall hear more about that in Committee.
The other big tax change affecting the economy which has not been mentioned is the tax on foreign investments in branches of foreign companies. The measure is complex but, particularly in the banking sector, it is a major disincentive to inward investment. In the past year, there has been quite a lot of evidence that inward investment in the United Kingdom is slowing relative to that in other countries. There are many reasons for that. It may have something to do with the euro area, or other factors may be involved, but it is certainly happening and the tax will not help.
Germane to the argument about foreign investment is the relative level of tax in this country compared with that in other countries. For some years, the Government have been buoyed by the idea that Britain is highly business-friendly, but taxes have been imposed on the business sector when countries such as Germany are beginning to realise the disadvantages of a high-tax environment. If one adds together all the different business taxes as a share of gross domestic product, the burden in the UK is now higher than it is in Germany, let alone the United States. More and more companies will begin to take that factor into consideration when they make investment decisions.
Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman jog my memory? The famous 1p on income tax in the 1997 Liberal Democrat manifesto was not for the national health service but earmarked for education. The increase in spending that the Liberal Democrats then proposed for the health service was to be funded by a change in national insurance contributions. Why have they suddenly become such a bad thing?
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to think of that intervention about a quarter of an hour ago.

45
If he is asking how the Lib Dems would deal with the revenue implications of my remarks, which are about the revenue costs of foreign investment, I will tell him.
One of the undesirable consequences of the idea that it is possible to raise lots of revenue by plugging the loopholes in respect of foreign investment is that the investment flow simply slows down and corporation tax is reduced. Many of the supposed revenue-raising measures are nothing of the kind.
Let me finish on a slightly more positive note. There were elements of the Budget on the business side—we are discussing the business aspects of the Budget—that we welcome and which have been helpful. The research and development tax credit has been widely welcomed in the high-technology industries. One company that I consulted said that the Government had got it about 95 per cent. right and listened to representations that it should be volume based rather than affecting marginal R and D. In other words, the measure is based on the Canadian rather than the American model.
Several companies stressed that the 5 per cent. that the Government have not got right could be a serious problem. It relates to the Inland Revenue's definition of R and D. The Government must listen to representations made to them about the way in which, for example, the tax rules help new R and D, as in the drug industry, but do not help engineering companies, where much R and D is incremental and small scale. The Government, and particularly the Inland Revenue, must take note of the way in which innovation is supported, as opposed to scientific R and D further up the chain. Those issues can be pursued further in Committee.
I welcome the recognition of the burdens of red tape associated with the value added tax system. That is good news and I hope that it brings real benefit. The Federation of Small Businesses estimates that the savings that a small company makes from the new VAT rules will be wiped out by the national insurance charges, once a company has more than four employees. That puts the change in its modest context.
There are one or two other revenue measures that are positive. One admirable measure that has not yet been noted, let alone commented on, has nothing to do with economics, but much to do with ethics. For the first time, the Government are to outlaw bribery as a tax relief. The Liberal Democrats have argued for that and I am delighted to see it in the Budget. It appears in very small print and I hope that it survives the passage of the Finance Bill through Parliament.
The Budget contains several small but useful measures, but they are swamped by the negative effects of the increased national insurance surcharge on employers. That will be the lasting legacy of the Budget. It will do harm. It will not have an immediate effect on people's pockets, except for those who are made unemployed, but in the long term, it will act as a serious drag on the country, its growth and inward investment. We warn about the consequences of the measure.
5.8 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: There has been much discussion this afternoon about the impact of what is, in effect, a payroll tax. I have two points to make. If the Government accept, as they do, that the funding of the NHS should be organised on the basis of national
46
insurance contributions and taxation, they have probably chosen the best way in which that can be done. There is never a right time for the imposition of any tax, but if there is to be a payroll tax, it is probably better to introduce it when unemployment is very low than when it is very high—a situation of which we had examples during the Tory years.
I well remember the lies and deceptions that were the hallmark of the 1992 election campaign, and the abuse that the late John Smith had to suffer when he was arguing for changes in national insurance contributions. For many of us, this measure is the completion of unfinished business—an expression that John used in another context, but which in this one is just as relevant.
In talking about the increase in expenditure on the NHS in a trade and industry debate, may I ask the Secretary of State to keep tabs on expenditure on equipment as a consequence of the added resource that the health trusts, hospitals and the health service generally will receive. It is vital that British manufacturing gets as big a share of that as possible. I am not suggesting some chauvinistic "Buy British" campaign, but there ought to be a unit available to the industry, supported by a plethora of interested organisations, to ensure that British business can best take advantage of the opportunities to which the largesse will give rise.
I am conscious of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about the North sea oil industry. I shall not cross swords with him because I know of his expertise in the matter. With characteristic modesty, he said that others in the House are more experienced than him. I should have thought that a former Shell economist had a little to teach some of us, but perhaps I could remind the hon. Gentleman of one or two significant points.
If a barrel of oil in the North sea costs $7 to $9, it is just about worth extracting. If it costs around $s11, a profit is made. If the figure is $13, it is worth the company investing. If it costs $15, the profits roll in. I was not one of those who argued two years ago, when the price of petrol at the pump was rising, that we should punish the oil companies, because there had been a prolonged period of low prices so there was not as much investment as there could have or should have been, and the upstream activities of a number of oil companies were suffering from losses.
However, the truth of the matter is that since June 1999, the monthly average price of oil has never been less than $17 a barrel. Indeed, throughout 2000, the price was $29 a barrel, and in 2001, it was $26 a barrel. Today, it is $26 a barrel. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the oil and gas exploration industry will somehow be deterred by a windfall tax when the price is $26 a barrel? I think that these people are having us on. The hon. Gentleman will know that, like farmers, those in the oil industry are never in a good position—if parent companies are not hammered on the upstream, they are hammered on the downstream.
Dr. Cable: The arithmetic that the hon. Gentleman sketched out is absolutely right. He may recall that I said that I thought that it was entirely fair in principle to tax excess profits. Is not the logic of his argument that if the

47
price of oil fell below, say, $17 a barrel in the next two financial years, the Government would have to withdraw the measure?
Mr. O'Neill: I suspect that this measure has not been introduced in perpetuity. We are talking about it as we would a windfall tax, which should be levied only once or for one year. It would not be sensible to burden the industry if it became clear that the price of oil was falling. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) want to intervene? He is a big man, so when he is sitting down it looks as if he is on his feet and talking.
Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that there is therefore no planning horizon for those considering investing in the North sea, and that they would be better off investing in Angola, Azerbaijan, Venezuela or north-west Australia, where at least they might have some confidence in the Government knowing their plans from one year to the next?
Mr. O'Neill: I am sorry that I let the hon. Gentleman intervene, because that is the kind of repetitive claptrap that we hear from every industry when taxation is imposed on it. We are still talking about prices that are substantially higher than the minimums required to get a reasonable return. It is not unreasonable that the British taxpayer should in such a way get back some of the money that they have to pay at the pump. The fact is that the oil companies upstream have been doing extremely well for the past three years. However. I shall move on because I know that hon. Members have difficulty agreeing on that.
Much has been said about supporting industry through tax credits and the like. Many of us have argued for years that the microbrewery industry was one small business that was important to our constituencies. I accept that it is sometimes a lifestyle business. There are four such breweries in my constituency. They employ small numbers of people and have never been able to enjoy the economies of scale that have been available to even the medium-sized breweries. In many ways, they have been unfairly treated by the system and I am pleased to welcome the improved support for those businesses. Such help has been available in countries such as Germany for many years. The change is a classic example of a small business lobbying as a trade association for several years and eventually getting the Government's ear. It probably means that every small trade organisation will ride its hobby-horse into our surgeries over the next couple of years, but many of us are happy to deal with problems of that nature.
I welcome the Government's decision to sustain the winter fuel payment until the end of this Parliament, whenever that may be. However, people who are unfortunate enough to be born after the end of September in any calendar year do not receive the payment. There was a solid administrative reason for that: it was thought too difficult to provide the payment to everyone because no one knew what it would be. We now know from the Chancellor that it will be £200 for the next three years. So I hope that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will
48
give us a positive indication that people whose birthdays are after the end of September will be entitled to get the winter fuel allowance.
If my arithmetic is right, only 75 per cent. of the possible new beneficiaries will receive the payment. There is nothing more galling than to be confronted by an irate woman—it is usually a woman—who, having just passed her 60th birthday, gives us hell in our surgeries on a Friday or Saturday because of the winter fuel allowance. We are asking for a wee bit of assistance on that because the payment is a great idea and reflects a tremendous expression of support by the Government for the elderly and disadvantaged. A number of people are denied that help, and by God do they feel bitter.
I hope that that is not seen as carping criticism. There is no reason for not extending the payment to everyone who is entitled to it. I like to think that the Government will address the issue in a spirit of largesse—perhaps not tonight, but certainly a little later on. I will write to the Minister about that because it is a problem that we need to consider. Although it is a small matter, we would make a sizeable number of people very happy were we to sort it out.
5.18 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: I draw the attention of the House to the business interests recorded in the register.
The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) did us one service: he gave the most honest description of the Budget that I have heard when he referred to it as the John Smith memorial Budget. We have certainly not heard members of the Government Front Bench calling it that, and it might have been more honest had the Chancellor cast it in those terms.
The Budget is based on a series of deceptions, the first of which is that the Government are responsible for the strength of the economy. Every time the Chancellor takes credit for the economy, I am reminded of that miners" grace from the Durham coalfield: -What we are about to receive has nowt to do with the Duke of Newcastle." The success and strength of 60 per cent. of the economy has nothing to do with the Chancellor; it has far more to do with the structural reforms that we carried through, which the Chancellor opposed night after night in the House when he voted against me throughout the 1980s, and with the guidance of the Monetary Policy Committee, which has managed to control inflation—a task that the right hon. Gentleman gave away when he came into office in 1997.
There are ways in which the Chancellor can help, but they are not to be found in the obsessive micro-tinkering that he is so good at. For example, he backed the film industry in 1998 and 1999, but in this Budget he is withdrawing and clamping down on the tax relief for films. He should concentrate his efforts instead on encouraging productivity and saving: Our productivity is not improving anything like fast enough; the manufacturing sector is clearly struggling; and we have the lowest savings ratio for a decade.
The second great deception behind the Budget is that the Government are somehow business-friendly. There has never really been any evidence for that. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that the Government are businessmen-friendly. It has been becoming pretty clear over the past few months that there is a process of

49
political serendipity whereby nice things seem to happen to Labour donors—but I shall not be drawn down that path. Any pretence that Labour backs business has now been blown away. It has now been clearly revealed that 80 per cent. of the new tax burden falls on business. Jobs will now be taxed more heavily than people. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) rightly said, the burden of the Budget will tall on jobs. The taxation increases will be paid by those in manufacturing, those who work for Corus, those in labour-intensive industries.
It is not enough for the Chancellor to talk about enterprise when he does so little to support it. We hear the right hon. Gentleman banging on time and time again about his admiration for entrepreneurship in the United States. He goes there, but it is not enough to be a political tourist and spend a couple of weeks playing tennis at Cape Cod. That is no substitute for understanding why the United States is so productive. It does not have our working practices. It does not have the TUPE regulations, the employment tribunals and all the other stuff that we have had to import from Brussels.
The US seems to have found the trick in the past 10 years of substituting capital for labour while having a growing work force and encouraging new jobs to be created. If the Chancellor were serious about backing enterprise, he would recognise that our economy is still much closer to the continental model than we would like to admit. If we really want to improve productivity in the UK, we must change the culture and the regulation of employment.
The third great deception is that we can improve public services by chucking money at them—that more people on the payroll necessarily means reform. The Government have a poor record in planning public spending. There was supposed to be a three-year cycle. We have had two comprehensive spending reviews, and I remind the House that just three weeks ago we entered only the second year of the CSR 2000, which began in April 2001. We are just three weeks into the second year of the three-year cycle, and suddenly we are told that none of it is sufficient. The plans have to be torn up and started again.
There were supposed to he targets. There were supposed to he public service agreements. First, there were 600 agreements; now there are only 60 or so. There were supposed to be penalties but there are none: if services do well, they get more money; if they do badly, they get more money and more interference. We have had endless reorganisation. Every year since I returned to the House in 1997, I have received papers saying that one trust is to merge with another, or that one health authority is to merge with another, or that one ambulance trust is to merge with another. Now we have primary care trusts. None of this endless reorganisation and tinkering with bureaucracy improves the lot of patients.
Public service managers are at the beck and call of Whitehall and of every initiative. They are now to be subsumed under layers of audit, inspection and accountability, instead of being given the freedom to manage, instead of being allowed better and stronger working practices, instead of being free to make more effective use of resources and to manage their own budgets properly.
I would like to see a clear commitment from the Chancellor that hospital managers, head teachers and area police commanders should be given freedom to manage
50
their own budgets and to manage their own people, so that they can respond effectively and locally to what their communities are asking. Instead, the Government are going down the route that a previous Labour Government bequeathed to the Thatcher Government, which was a series of public sector pay awards. This could be the son of Clegg—an explosion of public sector pay increases and jobs without necessary reforms in delivering the services that should have accompanied it.
The fourth and final deception is on tax. The Government claimed that they needed no increase in taxation. They did so not once, but twice, in 1997 and 2001. They claimed that they needed no increase in income tax, but national insurance is a tax on income. As I pointed out earlier, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who shared a television studio with me at the time of the election, said that she had no plans to increase the ceiling, but they have increased it. Clearly, she cannot have been telling an untruth, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so it must have been a broken promise, although when I challenged her earlier, she failed to explain or apologise.
Indeed, one of the most dishonest sentences in the Red Book is this:
"Save for this 1 per cent. contribution, the ceiling of £30,420 will remain in place, and will he indexed in line with inflation to £30,940."
The ceiling does not remain in place even until the end of the sentence. It has now been breached, and we learned this weekend that it could well be breached again. The national insurance increases will be borne not only by the higher paid, but by the lower paid as well, and by those who work in the national health service and for local government. Of course, they will be borne by the hard workers of middle England. We will have two different and increased tax rates: 33 per cent. for the basic rate and 41 per cent. for higher earners.
Those are very substantial increases in taxation and also in public spending. Public spending cannot indefinitely grow faster than the economy as a whole. It certainly cannot do so comfortably if the economy begins to slow. It would have been more honest of the Government to have spelt that out, but I have given up expecting honesty from them.
5.27 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Many hon. Members—most recently the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—have paid tribute in our debates on the Budget to the remarkable economic success of this Labour Government. Only the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) could seek to take that credit away from the Government.
Whichever way one looks at our time in office, one can see that it has been a period of the most remarkable and sustained success. We have now reached our sixth Budget, and it is clear that we can at last begin to reap some of the rewards of the very difficult decisions that had to be taken because of circumstances in 1997, which the hon. Member for Sevenoaks mentioned. They were caused by the Tories" reluctance to increase interest rates on the one hand, and their failure to reduce the national debt on the other. The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Opposition team at the time, so he will recall that they opposed every single measure that we had to take to rectify those two basic deficiencies with which the Tories

51
left us. Whether it was the windfall tax, getting rid of tax credits or advance corporation tax, they fought those measures tooth and nail, yet they were necessary to rectify the inherent imbalances in the economic situation that we inherited.
A raft of other such measures were introduced, but even while we were implementing them, we always had our eye on the need to create a more entrepreneurial set of measures to accompany them. It was in the same period—in those first three Labour Budgets—that we introduced our audacious reform of capital gains tax, which laid down the basis and took us further towards the measures announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
From the very beginning, the two strands of fairness and enterprise ran together. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spoke about them most effectively when she referred, among other measures, to the massive incentive that the Budget provides for research and development. That is important to Labour Members, because we know so well that, apart from problems in the general areas of investment in plant and machinery, it is also the underlying and continuing failure of British industry sufficiently to invest in R and D that has led to our falling progressively behind our major competitors.
Now, after five years of Labour Government, unemployment is right down and the minimum wage—so bitterly opposed by the Tories—is a proven success. Youth employment measures such as the new deal have been successful beyond any of our dreams. Interest rates and mortgage rates are the lowest for 40 years, and, as a result of what we have achieved in reducing the national debt, we can now ask what we can do to further the aim of rebuilding our public services in which there was under-investment during the long years of the Tory Government. That we are now able to do so is thanks in no small measure to the great, measured and mature judgment of the Chancellor and his chief economic adviser.
Two areas of social policy are of particular interest to the present team that shapes policy within the Treasury. These two issues are right at the heart of what the team cares about, and what the Labour movement cares deeply about. They are child poverty and the national health service. I do not want to get involved in the rather silly argument about whether 500,000 or 1.1 million children have been helped out of poverty. Everyone in the House knows in their heart that the measures that we have introduced, the increases in child benefit that we have put through, and the further benefits that will come from the integration of tax and benefit have made possible a massive improvement in the welfare of our children.
There is certainly more to come as the benefits of the integrated child and working families tax credits come through. They represent one of the most major changes in the way in which we tackle poverty and deal with those who are less well off in society that any Government have introduced since Lloyd George. That is how important and far-reaching they are, and all we ever hear from the Opposition is that the measures introduce an element of complexity. If that is the small price that we have to pay for something so far-reaching, effective and redistributive, I am sure that Labour Members are willing to accept it.
52
The national health service was clearly the centre point of the Budget. It has been a major issue since the first months of the Labour Government, when we decided—quite rightly, although it was a difficult decision—to stick to the spending figures that we had inherited from the Tories. I wish that we had then just taken that other £1.25 billion that the present Paymaster General may remember was available from the then Paymaster General's office to alleviate matters, but even if we had taken that money, it was clearly going to be an extremely difficult period.
Now, however, we are in a position to rectify that underspending. We commissioned an inquiry to determine the best way to do that. The Wanless inquiry was commissioned before the last election and reported after it. The report stated quite clearly that the present system of funding the national health service out of direct general taxation was the cheapest, fairest and most efficient one. The response of the Opposition was, of course, to set off on a series of quixotic travels in Europe, from which I do not suppose they will ever return with a decision or a judgment, as the Chancellor has remarked. They have ignored the considered report that has been put before them, on the basis of which the Government are now prepared to invest more heavily than has ever been done in the history of the national health service.
I hope that I will have the agreement of hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that the one big danger relating to the money is not that we shall not get improvements; of course we shall. Nor is it that we shall waste huge amounts of it; we shall not. There is, however, this wretched preoccupation in the NHS and in its executive with always changing the organisation. We need, in the simplest way, to reduce that—particularly at the top—and to make sure that the money goes into hospitals as efficiently and directly as is intended. If we can make that happen—frankly, it cannot be that difficult to achieve and no major management feat will be involved if the objective is clearly established—we shall be able to say proudly that a Labour Government introduced the NHS and a Labour Government saved it.
5.35 pm
Mr. David Ruffley: The Budget must be the most expensive job application in British political history, for it is a blatant attempt to play to the Labour MPs, and members of the union movement and the wider Labour movement who may vote in the next Labour leadership election. That tells us that the Budget is from a real Labour Chancellor—the tax-raiser general who is now unambiguously committed to high tax and high spend. But that explicit tax and spend agenda was not so clear during the general election campaign.
At that time the Labour party was much more coy about its tax intentions, and the Prime Minister told the Daily Express:
"We are not going to clobber people on higher incomes. We have not the slightest intention of hammering people on £30,000 and £35,000"
a year. Yet following the Budget, we know from the tax tables that a nurse consultant on about £34,000 a year will pay £24 a month more in national insurance and a police inspector on, for the sake of argument, £37,000 a year will pay £27 a month more in national insurance.
Buried away in the Red Book is box 2.1, which is entitled, with, I think, unintentional irony, "Informing households about tax and spending decisions".

53
Some electors might suppose that the information has come a year too late, because it was not flagged up in the election. The Government's reticence on tax last June probably reflected their lack of confidence that the public would buy such a Budget.
The Government have said clearly that the Budget has been well received, that the public are happy to pay more tax and that it will all work out okay in the end for the good old British taxpayer and, indeed, this Labour Government. However, disillusion will set in swiftly among Ministers, for two reasons.
First, the public will understand that the tax increases are simply not over. We have a 1 per cent. stealth tax for those over the top rate ceiling, but that is the beginning of a long series of increases—the thin end of the wedge—and the Chancellor has his foot in the door. The measure is a nice little earner for him, and perhaps his successor in this Parliament. It will raise more money from national insurance, which has always been his aim.
Mr. Siôn Simon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ruffley: Time does not permit; the hon. Gentleman will understand.
The Chancellor wanted to jack up top rate income tax liability in 1997 and 2001, but the Prime Minister prevented him from doing so. He has had his way this time, but he will have to revisit his top rate national insurance measure, because the Wanless projections clearly imply that that is necessary. Assuming no increase in private medical insurance take-up, by 2022, in cash terms at today's prices, £154 billion a year will be spent on the health system. As the Financial Times said on 18 April,
"the issue will certainly have to be reopened … these tax rises are only the first in what will have to be a continuing series if Mr. Wanless's blueprint is to be followed."
It is clear that this is not the end of the tax-raising escalator.
Never mind 2022, in 2006–07 and 2007–08 there will be big increases in funding for the health service, which will have to be covered by reining back non-health service expenditure. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has sensibly said that that implies tight control of other politically sensitive programmes, such as law and order and transport, to name but two. It is far from confident that, on past record, any Government, let alone this Government, will be able to rein in those demands. Given the projections for economic growth, it seems highly likely that in the short term, never mind the medium and long term, tax will have to rise.
The second reason why disillusion will set in is that the promised improvements in public services are unlikely to be delivered. The Chancellor has talked about reform, but we have heard that one before. Since 1997, the Government and the Chancellor have talked about injecting market disciplines and enterprise values into the school system and the NHS, but that has not come about. We were promised free enterprise incentives and penalties in the school system, but all that has happened is that troubled local education authorities have had their payroll administration and grass cutting privatised. That is not structural reform of the things that count.
54
We have also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) about the shambles of public service agreements, which are not open even to an audit of their assumptions by the Audit Commission. They are often soft targets. Many of them that are not soft are missed. We were promised that performance against public service agreements right across the public services would result in good performers being rewarded and less good performers having sanctions imposed on them. Not one of those sanctions has been applied. I am afraid that on this, as on so much else, the Government are just talking without delivering anything of substance. We are on a pointless paper chase with all those structures and systems, and it simply will not wash.
I have counted more than 30 new quangos that regulate and oversee the national health service. We will now have the new and hastily cobbled together commission for healthcare audit and inspection, although we do not know when it will be up and running—probably towards the end of this Parliament, just in time to miss a general election I fancy.
What is most troubling about the NHS reforms is that there has been no serious, intellectually respectable, careful, detailed analysis of the alternatives to the 100 per cent. taxpayer-funded model. If we think that that model is adequate, we should consider the statistics. Since 1997, there has been a 40 per cent. increase in spend, but activity has gone up by barely 6 per cent. In 1999–2000 alone, there was a more than 9 per cent. increase in spend, but the number of cases dealt with increased by 1 per cent. There has to be something wrong with the system. It will not wash for the Government simply to say that they will reform it using means that are not clear in the Budget or from any of the debates that we have had so far.
We have heard criticisms about the expensiveness of alternative models in Germany, France and Australia. Those systems have at least two things in common: they deliver better outcomes—survival rates for coronary disease and cancer are much better—and they provide greater responsiveness to the patient. They are market led to an extent, but the results are what we should be most concerned about.
We have had lots of ducks, feints and dodging. The national insurance increases, which are tax increases, have been linked with the health service by calling the NHS the best insurance policy in the world, but there is no true element of insurance or responsiveness through insurance. The social insurance models that have been examined by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench deserve serious analysis, not some half-baked report from the witless Wanless, who did not cover himself in glory in his previous job. The health service is too important to be entrusted to such a shoddy and shallow piece of work.
The Chancellor is moving closer to the European high tax, high regulation model. He is miles away from the American model he prates on about so assiduously. The reality is that the Budget gives us cause for hope in one respect, and we welcome it for that. It marks the end of banal, post-ideological politics. The battle lines are clearly drawn between the Conservative party, which stands for free enterprise, and Labour—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
5.45 pm
Mr. Nigel Beard: The financial consequences of meeting the ambition of this country to modernise and invest in a world-leading national health service were not dreamt up in a moment of emotional gush by someone with an urge to be philanthropic with other people's money. Mr. Derek Wanless was chief executive of the National Westminster bank. He is well known and respected in the City. His conclusion is that for a given level of health care, all other systems of finance are likely to be more expensive than funding through general taxation.
Why cannot the Conservative party accept that? It could be a golden moment: we could take the financing of the national health service out of political controversy. In those circumstances, many might be willing to forgive the Opposition for past mischief towards the national health service. However, they refuse to accept that escape route, because they are still addled by dogma.
We can see that in the vocabulary used by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to condemn the Government's plan. The national health service is a Stalinist organisation, they say. Despite the bureaucratic failure of the infamous internal market, the US experience of personal payment when need arises and the burden that would fall on employers from social insurance, the Opposition are toying with those ideas. Like the Bourbons, whom they resemble in so many ways, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
The Conservatives are not the only people who are confused as to the logic of their position. Mr. Digby Jones, the director general of the CBI is a gentleman with a somewhat shaky grasp of arithmetic, judging from the unfailing way in which he seems to get things out of proportion. I say that in the true spirit of new Labour—more in sorrow than in anger. I know that CBI members will advise him to distinguish between what he says late at night in the bar of his golf club and what he pronounces as the settled view of the CBI.
This Sunday, in an article in The Observer, Mr. Jones had the grace to say:
"UK business has never had the macro-economic stability in which it currently operates, and the Chancellor has been a major contributor."
Sadly, that followed his comment that the
"increase in … NI contributions will be another body blow to the UK's global competitiveness".
However, the UK has the lowest rate of corporation tax among OECD countries. It is enhancing competitiveness with the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Bill that is currently going through Parliament.
Let us put that national insurance contribution increase in proportion. It is not 20 percentage points, nor 10, nor even five: to Digby Jones it is one percentage point—something that might have been conceded in the annual round of wage negotiations. It is hardly a body blow, unless the body is particularly puny, and Mr. Digby Jones appears far from puny.
Elsewhere in his article, Digby Jones states:
"We don't have the transport infrastructure, skills base or historical investment in industrial resources of our rivals."
Well, you said it Digby; we are saying it, too. The only difference appears to be that Digby Jones does not want to pay for it, but we know that we must.
56
I do not want to be too solemn about Mr. Jones, but I wish that he and other spokesmen for business, and indeed business men generally, would recognise that we are all part of the same society. Business is not a separate caste that confers favours on society; it is part of society. In his article, Mr. Jones said that
"the Budget has seriously undermined the confidence that business has in the Government's genuine understanding of how business works".
Too often, the pronouncements of business undermine the confidence of the rest of us in its genuine understanding of how modern society works. I promise that I will never again make fun of Mr. Digby Jones and the CBI if its members will recognise that they are not just business men—members of UK plc—but citizens of the United Kingdom, one of the most innovative, benevolent, free and fair societies that the world has ever known.
Let me turn to an issue that ought to concern the CBI, and which concerns many of its members, even though Digby Jones overlooked it. Productivity—the amount produced per person or per hour of employment—is a measure of the country's capacity to generate new wealth, and thus of its ability to pay for community services. Given that we are achieving high levels of employment, it is productivity that will determine the UK economy's ability to grow. There are two aspects to productivity: doing more efficiently what is already being done, with inducements to make necessary changes; and innovating in order to produce something useful that was not available previously. Having spent many years during my career promoting innovation, I should like to address that aspect of productivity.
In January 2000, the Select Committee on Science and Technology concluded its report on engineering and physical science-based innovation by saying that,
"if Britain is to remedy its declining capacity for science based innovations, large companies will play the major part."
That is now recognised in this Budget. The report continues with this welcome statement:
"There is, therefore, a strong case for extending tax credits to them too. Market research and the provision of demonstrators of the final product are recognized as critical to innovative success. It would substantially reduce industry's risks and encourage innovation if the costs of market research, demonstrators and product launch were included in such an R&D tax credit."
There is a very strong case for Ministers" taking that conclusion seriously. Through research councils, much Government support for science rightly goes to fundamental or early-stage research. However, if such inventions are to be converted into economic advantage, they must be developed into practical products and processes. Development is a painstaking process that ensures that products and processes operate reliably and consistently, and, above all, satisfy a market demand. That process is far more expensive than earlier research, and involves major risks. All evidence shows that, for those reasons, many inventions are abandoned at that stage—a stage that industry alone can carry out because it has an intimate understanding of the potential market.
However, in recent years the Department of Trade and Industry's R and D scoreboard has shown that business spending on research and development—as opposed to Government spending—is falling behind that of our international competitors. That decline must stop, because business is the only source of development. Unless development expenditure comes into line with research

57
expenditure, more and more good ideas discovered in the United Kingdom will be commercialised in the United States or Japan. I hope that the welcome new research and development credit for larger companies will be used as a lever to encourage persistence in development.
The modern Labour party is dedicated to the view that economic strength and social justice go hand in hand. This country does not prosper when one political party pursues economic strength to the exclusion of social justice, while another spends money on social justice without nurturing the economic development to pay for it. That zig-zag approach has put this country behind our international competitors, and as a result our public and social services are poorer than they should be. The policy of the third way is working. This Budget is distinct, not as a mythical return to tax and spend, but as a practical example of such a comprehensive approach to social and economic policy and life in Britain.
5.54 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: This Budget is just more talk, more taxes, no change and no difference, and the British people deserve better.
Mr. Bryant: That is what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said yesterday.
Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman will hear it again and again, because basically it is true. As some of my colleagues have suggested, we have witnessed a big change, in that politics is returning to tax and spend. People are happy to pay more tax if they feel that such spending will deliver better services, but the difficulty for this Government is that, although they have demanded substantially more money, they do not know how to make the NHS or other public services work better. In the past five years, taxes have risen but in many instances public services have got worse. Britain deserves world-class public services, but I am afraid that this Government seem to tax more, waste more and fail to deliver. Often, as they fail to deliver, they move the goalposts—they change the means of assessment—or introduce new targets and plans for 10 years or much longer. People will judge this Government in terms of delivery, and unless they seriously reconsider how they deliver many public services, I am confident that at the next election the British people will re-evaluate their support, and they may well determine that the Government have run their course.
I should have pointed out at the beginning of my speech that I am a director of a family building business that may be affected by Budget measures. That interest is declared in the Register of Members" Interests.
The national insurance surcharge will hit business hard. As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, it will be paid by all businesses, regardless of whether they make a profit. Reduced rates on company taxation are somewhat hypothetical if, just to stay in business, the amount of money going out of a business has to go up. A figure of 1 per cent. may not sound much to Labour Members, but such an increase can sometimes determine whether a company stays in business. The Government have hit business hard through that increase.
The national insurance increase imposed on many of those in the public sector is also significant. A nurse consultant on £34,000 a year will be £24 a month
58
worse off; a police inspector on £37,000 a year will be £27 a month worse off; and an employee on £20,000 a year will he £13 a month worse off.
Mr. Bryant: We have just heard all those figures.
Mr. Syms: If the hon. Gentleman had listened in the first place, perhaps he would appreciate that hard-working people who are trying to deliver better public services are being taxed higher through this increase. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said, this Government have taken "29 billion off business. In terms of the economic outlook, they inherited a golden legacy from the previous Government, but if they continue to load taxation on business, this country's competitive position will prove much more difficult to sustain in the long term. When a downturn does occur—I do not believe that this Government have abolished the business cycle—the cost of keeping people in employment will prove substantially higher than is necessary, leading to high unemployment.
This Government seem to be in favour not only of higher taxes, but of more red tape. New regulations are introduced every 26 minutes of the working day. UK companies are spending more time filling in forms, and less time managing their business. Even before the Budget, £6 billion-worth of extra taxation was in the pipeline, along with extra regulations costing some £5 billion. Meanwhile our competitive position is declining. In 1997, Britain was ninth on the world competitiveness scoreboard, but this year we have fallen to nineteenth. Britain's productivity growth has slowed under Labour. Under the Conservatives, average growth in the UK was faster than in the US, but under Labour the reverse is true.
In the first four years of the Labour Government, the UK's economy grew at a rate slower than America's, and slower than during the last four years of the previous Conservative Government. Britain's share of world exports has fallen from 5.1 per cent. in 1997 to 4.5 per cent. in 2000. The Chancellor had little to say in his Budget speech about the appalling, and apparently growing, balance of payments deficit.
Research carried out by the Library also shows that 4,642 new regulations were introduced in 2001—the highest figure on record. Many of those regulations have to be implemented by the owners of small business, who spend more time form filling and less time managing their businesses. Despite the Government's protestations about what they are doing for manufacturing, 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1997. The economy has kept growing, but that has concealed the fact that so many businesses and sectors of the economy have suffered.
The Conservative party believes in the ideals of the NHS, but I am afraid that we are moving further away from them as time goes by. Last year, 250,000 people without insurance paid for their own operations. I suspect that all hon. Members have seen people in their surgeries who have been faced with either waiting lists or mortgaging their homes to pay for an operation that may well ensure that they live longer. None of us who believes in a service free at the point of delivery can be complacent about that.
All that my hon. Friends and I are saying is that we ought to be a little bit open-minded about how we deliver health services. I believe that health care will be delivered

59
principally through the tax system in future, but that does not mean that we cannot consider the methods adopted in other countries—in particular, those on the continent—to discover whether there are other funding alternatives that will increase the pot so that we can deliver what we want: decent health care for our citizens.
The fact of the matter is that the national health service employs more than 1 million people. It is not an easy service to manage, so we should consider ways in which to ensure that the service is more creative in future, and many of those in the NHS to whom I have talked appreciate that. One of the biggest frustrations of working in the public sector is that those involved want to deliver a better service, but they sometimes feel that the system conspires against them. If we could unlock the potential of NHS staff, I am sure that we could deliver better health care outcomes for our citizens.
North sea oil has already been mentioned. The North sea oilfield is now moving towards maturity, so it is important to ensure that we get the most out of it by encouraging firms to maintain investment. It was widely thought that a stable tax regime had been agreed, so that people knew where they were and could invest in the future. But the Government are desperate to raise some money, so they have hit what they consider to be the soft option. Instead of one possibility of raising money from motorists, they have decided to go for the oil companies. As the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) said, the oil companies employ many people in his constituency and are going through a rough time at the moment, but they will go through a rougher time because of the decisions taken in relation to the North sea industry.
The restrictions on film industry tax relief were not mentioned in the Budget statement. The tax reliefs introduced under the last Conservative Government were greatly enhanced in the 1997 Budget and thereafter. Indeed, the Government improved the tax position of many of those in the film industry, but they have found that the policy has been so popular that it is costing them much more than they expected, mainly because television companies have taken advantage of the film tax regime, so the Government have cracked down.
As has been said, the Chancellor spent a lot of time mentioning the Budget's impact on microbreweries, but he did not mention the crackdown on the film industry tax regime. Although that change will raise only £15 million in the current year, it will raise £225 million and £295 million in the two years thereafter. Those large sums did not so much as rate a mention in the Chancellor's speech.
I would give the Chancellor more credit for providing tax relief for the climate change levy if he had not introduced it in the first place, because it did great damage to much of our heavy industry. It is one tax that our European competitors do not impose, and I am afraid that it impacts heavily on the United Kingdom and has a regressive effect on our competitiveness.
There is no doubt that the Budget will have an impact on local authorities. Poole borough council—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has had his time.
6.4 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies: I venture to suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) has been dropped from Digby Jones's Christmas card list, as I may well be at the end of my speech. We shall see.
As has been said, this is without doubt a defining moment, and there is now clear water between us and the Opposition. I am not sure whether it is blue or red water, but the simple fact is that there is now an ocean between us in our approach to remedying the ills of the NHS. Despite what Opposition Members have said, I am confident that, coupled with the record funding and the reforms that have already been put in place in the NHS, we will see the benefits. I suspect that Opposition Members will still be sitting in the same place in a few years" time and that they will have to make a good lunch of the words that they have just spoken.
People in any constituency often see headlines about job losses and company closures, but behind those headlines, we find the headline figures. In my constituency, there has been a 47 per cent. drop in unemployment since 1997. The decrease in long-term youth unemployment is even more significant at 62 per cent. Those figures are not to be sniffed at. We are talking about youngsters getting jobs through the new deal and having realistic expectations of long-term careers. That is to be welcomed. New business set-up and survival rates are improving. That stands in stark contrast to what we saw before 1997: boom-and-bust economics and a lack of the stability that employers want.
During my daily reading, I looked at the Financial Times the day after the Budget, just as many people in Ogmore do when they sit down to their breakfasts. I took exception to the fact that its editorial referred to
"the idle poor who take their pleasure in bingo halls and clubs."
I hope that that was said tongue in cheek, but I suspect that the Financial Times has now been removed from every working men's club throughout the Garw, Llynfi and Ogmore valleys.
The Financial Times also referred to the welcome news of the research and development initiative. Ian McCafferty, the CBI's chief economic adviser, and Rob Margetts, the former chairman of the Royal Academy of Engineering, welcomed the research and development tax credit. Peter Cotgreave of Save British Science said:
"UK firms invest less than their competitors in research."
The Budget is designed to increase research, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that that needs to happen.
We need to encourage more investment and innovation because that is the way to turn around areas such as my constituency. In contrast to what the Opposition parties are saying, Stephen Plender said:
"Competition policy has been an unexpected strength of new Labour."
He made particular reference to the Enterprise Bill which is going through Parliament.
I welcome the measures for communities such as mine. The community investment tax credit is specifically geared towards disadvantaged areas. The disadvantaged areas stamp duty relief will provide us with more investment in premises. I also welcome the streamlining of the VAT regime for small firms.

61
Ogmore is almost a constituency of two halves. The M4 corridor has rightly received massive inward investment, but other areas have been left behind because the Conservative turned their back on them when they were in power. Labour Members welcome the investment in research and development and in deprived communities, and I hope that Opposition Members will welcome them as well.
Investors in People is to be encouraged for small firms. Small firms are important in places such as Ogmore because we have to turn back the culture that the Tories instilled in those communities. The Tories said that they were not worth it and that they could not live up to the expectations of other areas. We are clearly saying that we have confidence in people, so they will be able to turn their communities around, and we have put in place the economic measures that will allow them to do so. Small companies corporation tax has been reduced by 1 per cent. to 19 per cent. Those who quibble over 1 per cent. should remember that the starting rate has been cut from 10 per cent. to zero—not halved or reduced to 2 or 3 per cent., but cut all the way down to zero.
All that has been done on the basis of a Labour Government who have developed economic stability. No wonder people have totally lost faith in the Conservatives" ability to deliver on the economy—they have seen the Labour party do it 10 times or 100 times better. We have low inflation, stable interest rates and continuing economic growth. The distant nightmares of Tory boom and bust, of unemployment being a price worth paying in my communities, and of "on your bike" policies that forced people to travel away and turn their backs on where they were brought up are—please—long gone.
I mentioned that we have reached a pivotal point, and it is a seminal point not only for politics, but for the society in which we live and for business. Now comes the question that will get me struck off the CBI's Christmas card list. Would it not be nice to read in the headlines of the Financial Times, The Guardian and The Observer that the CBI had said, "We take responsibility for our stake in society as well. We are willing to put the money in as well, because the health of this nation goes hand in hand with the wealth of the nation."? The enterprise economy has nothing to do with cutting people off in the business jungle and saying, "Let them get on with it. It's a hard game out there. Let them do their own thing." Businesses have a stake in civic society, just as Labour Members of Parliament, the people back in Ogmore, and every citizen of this country do. Let every person play their part.
As for the 1 per cent., it will not break the back of every company in Britain. Let me tell hon. Members what it will do: it will help the Labour Government to turn the national health service around, invest properly in public services and build the sort of future for our communities that the Conservatives were never interested in.
6.12 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As we have heard from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca"Davies), the extra money raised is to be pumped into the national health service, and that is welcome, but I am sure that after such an increase in taxation, we will want to see some change fairly soon. Following all the hype surrounding the Budget and the promised injection of cash, change will now be expected,
62
and, for the sake of all our constituents, I sincerely hope that it happens. Unfortunately, according to many sources, unless there is root-and-branch reform, the increased investment will do little to improve the service but will merely limit further decline.
Because of Labour's election manifesto pledges, no rise in income tax could be allowed without—God forbid—the Government breaking a promise, so to raise enough income to cover all the promises that the Government have made, other appropriate means have to be used, one of which is national insurance. Despite the warnings given by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in his well-argued speech, I do not oppose that approach in principle. However, because of the relatively low ceiling on national insurance contributions, those on higher incomes do not pay proportionally as much as those on lower incomes.
In the days preceding the Budget, the press was full of speculation that the Chancellor would raise that ceiling significantly, but he did not. My party would have been happy if he had, as would many people outside, because now the net effect is that lower earners pay proportionally more in NICs than high earners. It can therefore be argued that the change is regressive. I refer hon. Members to the well-argued case made by the hon. Member for Twickenham, but continue to believe that raising NICs is a step in the right direction, subject to the caveat that I mentioned.
There is a problem, which is that the increase in national insurance will hit the public sector hard, almost with the effect of giving with one hand and taking with the other. It is estimated that the change will cost almost "1 billion per annum. Plaid Cymru believes that a more progressive system of taxation is needed in the United Kingdom. We think that the abolition of the national insurance ceiling would be helpful—
Mr. Mark Hoban: It has gone.
Mr. Llwyd: Not absolutely. It has been raised, not abolished.
Increasing the personal allowance for those on the lowest incomes, increasing by 1 p the standard rate of income tax, and setting a new 50 per cent. top rate for those earning more than £50,000 would have been more progressive. Such measures would have raised more than £20 billion throughout the UK, making an additional " 1 billion available for use in public services in Wales.
Hitherto, the Chancellor's tight economic policies have helped to drive up the value of the pound, boosted the booming service sector, and rewarded big business and those on higher incomes, but we in Wales know that there are problems. Welsh agriculture is badly squeezed, in part because of the strength of the pound, and manufacturing and tourism are suffering. The Chancellor's seeming infatuation with the service sector has put more traditional industries at risk. Again, he has failed to target incentives to help business in deprived areas.
Wales needs a strong and targeted regional economic policy. Lowering corporation tax and employers" national insurance contributions in objective 1 areas would boost investment. Wales stands at the door of probably the greatest opportunity for economic resurrection since the end of the coal era, but objective 1 funding is an unfortunate sign of how bad things really are. If the state

63
of Wales's economy were as good as Labour Members like to believe, it would not have been given objective 1 status.
Unfortunately, getting our hands on the money to take full advantage of that status has not been easy. To be fair, the Chancellor has awarded Wales extra money above the Barnett block in the current comprehensive spending review, but regardless of all the spin and reports, no match funding has yet been made available. Before 2000, grants from the European regional development fund were paid by the Scotland Office and the Wales Office out of the Barnett block, but no adjustment was made to the block to cover the extra cost. In effect, money from the ERDF was paid to the Treasury in London for projects in Wales but not passed on via the Barnett allocation. In other words, ERDF grants never reached Wales and the funding of all ERDF projects was at the expense of the core budget. I believe that the story is similar in Scotland.
Mr. Wayne David: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Llwyd: No, I have only 10 minutes.
The practice was exposed in the National Assembly for Wales, and the subsequent comprehensive spending review allocated £421 million for the three years 2001 to 2004 in addition to Barnett, to cover part—but not all—of the European grants earmarked for projects in Wales. That allocation is a fixed amount that does not fully cover the European grants actually paid out by the National Assembly. That coverage could easily have been achieved by making the budget line an annual managed expenditure—thus passing on 100 per cent. of the money received from Europe for projects in Wales—rather than a departmental expenditure limit.
No contribution was made from the Treasury to public sector match funding, which increased substantially with the start of the objective 1 programme in January 2000. As a result, next year, £65 million of itemised expenditure will he taken out of the Assembly budget to supplement the match funding already in the system. As that money comes from the Barnett block, the budget available for core responsibilities such as health and education will have to be cut correspondingly. After 2004, it is predicted that the total match funding specified directly in the Assembly budget will increase to £90 million, and unless that increase is fully covered in the funding allocated to the National Assembly, further inroads will be made into the core budget for services such as health and education.
Although the Chancellor has cut corporation tax to record lows, those cuts are not targeted: they are not aimed at certain sectors or areas. Deprived areas need direct intervention to help to promote their businesses, entice investment and retain existing jobs. The Chancellor announced tax credits for businesses across the board—universal benefits for an uneven playing field. There is a two-speed economy in Britain: first, the booming south-east of England, and good luck to them; and, secondly, the rest of us. It might be more correct to say that there is only a one-speed economy, and the rest of the country is beginning to slip into reverse.
There is a strange dichotomy in the Chancellor's thinking. On the one hand he favours targeted tax credits in his social policy but on the other, he favours universal
64
benefits for companies. He is willing to target poorer families, but unwilling to target poorer regions. If the Government lowered corporation tax and national insurance contributions in objective 1 areas—the most deprived in the UK—businesses in those areas would have a slight advantage over those in more prosperous regions. That would entice more investment and make conditions more favourable for success. Tax cuts and credits should be aimed at the areas that need them most. That is where we have lost out. For example, research and development tax credits are welcome, but, regrettably, few companies in Wales will benefit from them.
Unfortunately, Wales lies at the bottom of the UK competitiveness index. Nine of the 20 lowest-paid areas are in Wales, and the highest average wage in Wales by constituency is still lower than the UK average. The gap between the south-east of England and the rest of the UK is still growing, and the Government have missed an opportunity to do something to alleviate that grave problem.
Since 1979, when the Barnett formula was introduced, Wales's gross domestic product has fallen from 88 per cent. of the UK average to 80 per cent. A new formula is needed to replace Barnett, but there is no time to discuss that now.
Wales faces further problems caused by long-term ill health and a particularly high proportion of senior citizens.
According to the figures, over the next five years, Wales will receive an extra £300 million a year for the NHS. That is most welcome. However, the British Medical Association in Wales estimates that Wales is short of approximately 100 doctors, and a recent survey shows a shortage of approximately 800 nurses. Waiting lists have shot up—there has been an increase of more than 900 per cent. in patients waiting for their first appointment with a consultant. According to the Library, it costs more than £250,000 to train a doctor, so training the necessary 100 doctors will cost £25 million. Training the necessary 800 nurses Will add an extra £28 million—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
6.22 pm
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: This has been an interesting debate. I intend to focus a large part of my comments on research and innovation, so it is appropriate to begin by declaring an interest in that I am an unremunerated member of the Kent Innovation Centre, an organisation set up by Thanet district council to support innovative and knowledge-based start-up industries. That is an example of a Labour council working hand in hand with a Labour Government to ensure that we have industries for the future.
Listening to the debate, I wondered whether Conservative Members even understand why we have public services. I urge them to look at page 7 of a handy little Treasury document called "Budget 2002: a summary leaflet", which gives a breakdown of how taxpayers" money is spent. Having done a few sums, I discovered that the national health service costs about £1,200 a year per person—in other words, £100 a month. Do Conservative Members believe that a private or social insurance system could provide the benefits of the NHS for £100 a month? We have public services because they

65
leverage in benefits of scale, of fairness and of innovation, and that gives us more bang for our buck. They enable us to deliver services to the people who need them, as they need them. It is time that Conservative Members learned that lesson.
I was also interested to hear Conservative Members" comments about the state of the country in 1997. Frankly, I have to wonder which country they were living in. I became a Member of Parliament in 1997, and I remember the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who spoke earlier but is unfortunately no longer in his place, telling the House in the Budget debates of that Parliament about the mess that the Government were making of the economy by plunging it into recession and doing nothing to bring it out.
I remember Conservative Members opposing every one of the measures that the Government introduced to build the stable economy that we have today—the strongest economy in the world, and the only one in the developed world to avoid last year's global recession. We have the lowest interest rates for decades, the lowest unemployment in the developed world and the highest employment in UK history—and we are still a week or two short of the Government's fifth anniversary. By any stretch of the imagination, that is a catalogue of achievements of which the Chancellor, the Prime Minister, the Government and all Labour Members can be proud.
Conservative Members can take no credit for those achievements, because they opposed all the measures that were needed to implement them. When they said that the national insurance increase was a tax on jobs, I was reminded of the last time they used that phrase—when we were introducing the national minimum wage, and they kept telling us that it would create 1 million unemployed. In fact, 1 million jobs have been created since we introduced the minimum wage.
From the beginning of 1997, the Liberal Democrats demanded extra expenditure on everything. They wanted to start spending money that we did not have before we had earned it or were in any position to do so.
Mr. David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would have been better to be in year five of the 10-year investment plan for the NHS, as we should be, or in year one, as we are?
Dr. Ladyman: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman if we had had the current economic position five years ago and it had been possible to begin this expenditure, but we have to start from where we are. In 1997, we inherited a country that was going into recession—as Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members said at the time—so we were not in a position to spend the money that we can spend today.
I remind Liberal Democrat Members of the pledge that they made in 1997—not to spend the sums on the NHS that we are about to spend, but to make a change to national insurance contributions that would have yielded precisely £250 million a year extra for the NHS. That was the total largesse that they would have provided. All the strength in the economy has been achieved since 1997. Every Budget since then has been opposed by Opposition Members and forced through by Labour Members. It is to our credit that we are in the position that we are in today.
66
I want to focus on how to maintain that position. The way forward must be through innovation, knowledge-based industries and science and research. The days when this country could compete against countries in the far east and the developing world on low unit costs are long gone. Businesses in sectors such as the pharmaceutical industry, in which I was employed before I entered the House, are key. Before the 1997 election, the chairman and chief executive of Pfizer, the company that I worked for, said that we were getting close to throwing away any advantage that we had in such innovative industries, because higher education was being allowed to erode, insufficient attention was being given to skills and training, and support was not being provided. A few weeks ago, I had lunch with the new chairman and chief executive of Pfizer, and he said that in his view Britain was once again the best country in the world for pharmaceutical investment. He did not mean that the situation was perfect, and he had some ideas about how it could be made even better. Nevertheless, we are now the best in the world, and we must maintain that position.
That is why the Roberts report commissioned by the Government is so important. The report identified a significant decrease in the number of students studying maths, engineering and physical sciences. It highlighted the negative image of science and engineering and the inadequate information in schools about careers in them. I especially condemn the anti-science attitudes of many hon. Members. They are a reason for people's lack of interest and the lack of respect for scientists.
The report underlined the difficulties of many students in applying their technical knowledge in the workplace and made recommendations to which we should pay special attention. We need to interest more kids in sciences, including maths, physics, engineering and all the technologies. We need in particular to interest girls and women in science and research and find ways in which to make that more practical. The Budget included measures to help get women back into the work force.
I especially welcome the volume- based credit for research companies. It will go a long way towards making investing in research more acceptable. However, if we do not accept the recommendations in the Roberts report, we will lose what we have: genuine opportunity to exploit technology and knowledge-based industries. We have always been good at that. We have created a base, and we can continue to expand it and make our living from those industries. The Budget does much to help that campaign, and the Chancellor should be congratulated on that. The comprehensive spending review, which will be completed shortly, should go even further. I hope that the spending review will accept and act on all the recommendations in the Roberts report.
The Government have done a tremendous job in difficult circumstances. They have built the strongest economy that we have ever had. We must make it sustainable and based on knowledge, innovation and high-tech industries. We are only starting the process; I hope that we shall go the rest of the way in the next three years.
6.31 pm
Sir Robert Smith: As hon. Members may have noticed from my interventions, I feel strongly about one aspect of the Budget

67
about which my constituents are concerned. First, I do not wish to incur the wrath of the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), but I shall mention that my constituency depends not only on oil but on farming, tourism and other industries, and that in my view the value of the pound in relation to the euro is a growing problem that we need to sort out.
I want to concentrate on the aspect of the Budget that was a bombshell and shock to many of my constituents. Let me explain the reason for that. It is estimated that at least 40,000 jobs in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire are in oil companies or companies that provide services that are directly related to oil production. That does not include all the spin-off jobs in the north-east that service the people who work in the oil industry. Some 250,000 jobs—a large number—in the United Kingdom stem from investment in North sea oil.
I want to stress the extent to which the oil industry is part of the fabric of north-east Scotland. I went to university in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Many of my contemporaries now work in the industry, and I pick up a lot from them and others who work in all parts of it. I hear not only from lobbyists and people in London, but from neighbours and the people I meet in church and in the pub. They work in the industry and I hear about all aspects of it. Jobs in the oil industry are challenging; people enjoy doing them, but they are risky and many fatalities have occurred. Those jobs involve a lot of hard work.
Not only do my constituency and others throughout the country benefit from jobs: security of supply for the United Kingdom is also important. Having energy that feeds into the national grid on our doorstep rather than buying it from abroad is comforting. We know that we can ensure that the lights go on and that gas comes out of the gas tap. Security of supply is a great benefit of maximising the potential of our resources.
The oil industry has contributed £175 billion in taxes since the 1960s. At the moment, £4 billion to £5 billion of taxes derive from activities in the North sea; £200 billion of investment has been made. There is more to come; that is crucial. There is as much oil and gas left in the North sea as has already been exploited. There is a long-term future if we get things right. I believed that the Government understood that, and that they were working to make the North sea a success story.
When the Chancellor first came to office, we heard terrifying stories of immediate windfall tax, but he engaged in dialogue. People, including me, praised the Government for setting an example to other sectors by engaging in dialogue, setting up a taskforce, establishing PILOT and working together. Department of Trade and Industry Ministers acknowledge the importance of getting it right. The Minister for Industry and Energy said in an interview with Holyrood magazine, which was published this week, that our main challenge
"is to slow the pace of decline"
in the North sea.
The North sea is an expensive place in which to operate. It is physically challenging because of the deep water and hostile climate. It requires leading technology, which is not cheap. It is important to acknowledge that there is cheaper competition elsewhere: it is cheaper to operate in the gulf
68
of Mexico, and many constituents commute to Azerbaijan. There are bigger fields in those countries, so they are more attractive places for investment.
The Chancellor had his eye on the North sea. It seems an easy hit to the casual, lay observer. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be hitting big London businesses that charge a lot for petrol at the filling station. In fact, however, he is not taxing big London companies, but the profits in the North sea, and only the North sea. As the hon. Member for Ochil said, when the companies are not making profits downstream, they make them upstream. Perhaps the Chancellor thought he could aim at that. But he is not taxing companies" profits from investing in the gulf of Mexico. He is taxing only those that decide to make profits in the North sea. He has charged a third extra on current taxation.
When will the tax start? The right hon. Gentleman gave no warning to enable people to plan for it. It began on Budget day, and no one can work round it. We live in an open, free market in which capital flows and looks for its best return. When the Chancellor decides to take increased revenues from a closed field such as the North sea, he makes it less competitive. He may have dressed things up in talk about future royalties, but that does not apply to the present; it does not affect the bottom line now.
The Chancellor is offering capital relief, which will be welcome, but he is taking extra revenue. Leaving aside the capital relief, imposing tax means that more money will come out of the North sea. He estimates that it will be £100 million this year and that the figure will increase to some £600 million a year. That is not only a breach of trust. Earlier in the debate, I made the point that some of my constituents face redundancy to make the industry more competitive. The industry is making people redundant to reduce the cost base. Their salaries are no longer paid to them, but are contributing towards making the industry more competitive. However, the Chancellor is now taking away people's salaries to help him collect his taxes.
The message to my constituents is depressing. It is also worrying for other industries that are considering investing in this country. When will the Government change the tax regime for them if they prove successful and the Government believe that they have captured them? I am worried about the short-termism of the Government's approach. If we get it right and encourage investment in the North sea, we will make more revenue in future. Every barrel of oil and every cubic metre of gas left in the North sea means revenue for future generations. It can pay for future health care, but it will be lost if the Chancellor does not get it right, work properly with the industry and acknowledge the need for investment.
The Budget was meant to be enterprising and fair. For those who have lost their jobs to make competitive an industry that the Chancellor, by taking tax out of it, is now making even more uncompetitive, it is neither enterprising nor fair.
6.39 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Obviously we welcome more money for the national health service, and it is interesting that two or three times tonight the Opposition have declined to say how they would fund it. We hear vague statements about other systems, but it is about time that their criticism became constructive and

69
they told us exactly which system they would use. I am certain that Members on both sides of the House want to make sure that NHS staff get their just rewards and receive their fair share of any extra money going to the NHS. That issue, I know, is likely to be the subject of negotiations; nevertheless it should be flagged up in the House.
Obviously we welcome the continuation of the £200 chill weather payments. Some of us who were in the House prior to 1997 know of the battles that used to be waged here on a Friday morning. The debate was not about £200 then; it was about an increase in the £10 allocation that had been made for several years. I am glad too that the Chancellor is doing a little more for pensioners—a subject to which I shall return.
Hon. Members have not touched on the fact that there is more money to tackle crime. I always thought that crime was a big priority, but the Chancellor has now allocated more money to the Home Office to fight the various facets of crime. We could all give the House a catalogue of statistics on crime. I do not want to do that, but I think that the debate should have been more concerned with crime.
Another issue that caused a great deal of controversy in the run-up to the general election—I am surprised that I have heard no one mention it tonight—is the freeze on fuel duty. Some hon. Members will remember blockades by road hauliers. At that time, I was a member of the Trade and Industry Committee, which took evidence from road hauliers. We should welcome the freeze on fuel duty because it demonstrates that the Government are listening. Whether they can always meet the demands that are made of them is another matter, but they have gone some way to address those grievances. Road hauliers also raised the question of lorries coming from abroad, which use our roads but make no tax contributions. There will be a charge for that. Anybody who knows anything about industry knows that haulage and transport are the biggest costs after research and development, and together they can build up to a considerable amount.
That leads me on to the next measure that I welcome. As somebody from an industrial background, I appreciate the fact that, as I said, the bulk of a company's expenditure goes on research and development. I therefore welcome the tax credit for research and development, based on volume. Obviously, I should like that measure to go further, but I know that it will certainly be welcomed by companies with which I have corresponded and whose delegations I have met. Before 1997, I used to accompany numerous delegations to meetings with Ministers of the then Tory Government, who were not very happy, to say the least, about the idea of giving any concessions on research and development. That issue was raised with us in meetings with the chairmen of various companies. There are a number of measures in the Budget that have not been touched on in the debate, and which I think are vital to the British economy.
It is well worth reminding the Conservatives that, before 1997, when there were arguments about whether taxes would go up, they indicated that there would be no increase in VAT on fuel, but we all know what happened. They demonstrated that it is not only on one side of politics that people are forced to do things that they do not want to do—it happens to every Government. We talk about the enterprise economy, and I am sure that people remember negative equity and the lives and businesses
70
that it wrecked. It would be interesting to compare the number of businesses that went bust under the previous Conservative Government with the number which it is alleged are going bust under this Government.
Not much has been said about the minimum wage. When it was introduced, the Opposition said that it would cost about 1 million jobs. Anyone from the pre-1997 Parliament could highlight cases—I certainly know of one—in which people were being paid £1 an hour, which is amazing. There was a lot of publicity about that. The Conservatives were never able to demonstrate that they were good managers of the economy, although if this Government have any success, the Opposition are the first to rush to claim it. I am sure that hon. Members remember when interest rates were between 17 and 20 per cent., and the Conservative Government had to pull out of the exchange rate mechanism.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) mentioned the amalgamation of health authority trusts. That started under the Conservative Government. I have never been too happy about that, and some hon. Members will know that I introduced a ten-minute Bill on the subject. I wanted trusts to have patient representatives with sole responsibility for patients" interests, and that is an area that needs reform. There were a number of hospital closures under the Conservative Government. It is well worth reminding the Opposition of their record in government.
I welcome the move to do something about the thorny question of VAT for small businesses, which is a step in the right direction. For turnover below £100,000, businesses will be charged VAT at a flat rate. I am sure that in future Budgets the Government will want to do more about that.
No one has touched on the climate change levy. I welcome the fact that there will be certain exemptions from that for companies that take environmental issues into consideration. However, we must do more. I also welcome the 7 per cent. increase in the science budget. Anybody who talks to university chancellors and vice-chancellors knows that there is tremendous pressure on university budgets.
I want to draw the attention of Ministers, including the Minister for Pensions, to the fact that the pension schemes of companies such as Peugeot face problems with deficits caused by falling investment returns. Peugeot has a shortfall of about £85 million, and the people on the receiving end of that are the employees who make contributions, which Peugeot intends to raise by about 5 per cent. Some hon. Members may have read in the newspapers that a west midlands company called Caparo Group is to abolish its pension scheme, which could affect about 500 workers. I think that my right hon. Friend will be hearing a little bit more from us about those two issues.
I have already indicated that I welcome what the Government are doing for pensioners, but I still think that travel provision is patchy throughout the country. Pensioners in the west midlands can get free bus travel, but those in other parts of the country cannot. That issue will not go away, and nor will the question of pension payments. Most pensioners would rather be paid through the post office than through a bank. I am sure that Ministers will address those issues. Some pensioners who own their own home have difficulty getting a grant for repairs. We have debated those matters before, and I am sure that we will do so again.

71
Returning to the health service. I welcome some of the new measures, particularly on bed blocking, about which there is considerable concern throughout the country. I welcome the 6 per cent. increase in resources to tackle that. However, I suggest to my colleagues that, as with all the other resources that we are putting into the health service, we have to look at how that money will filter through. There is a structural difficulty concerning chief executives and local authorities, and I hope that Ministers will consider that because Coventry has had major problems with bed blocking.
I support the Budget, but we still have to take action on those areas that I have highlighted.
6.49 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), which makes this a tripartite Scottish treble. I am the first Scottish Conservative to respond to a Budget proposal since 1997, and that represents both an honour and an opportunity to set this Budget in a Scottish perspective, and particularly to assess how it relates to the progress made since 1997.
The Scottish economy has always been driven by trade and commercial activity. My area of south-west Scotland is centred around Glasgow, which was the heartland of the Commonwealth, the trading capital and the second city for many years. Two snapshots of the Scottish economy, however, give the lie to many of the rose-tinted perspectives on the economy that we have heard from those on the Government Benches this afternoon.
Scottish unemployment is now rising. The International Labour Organisation rate is now 6.8 per cent. as opposed to 6.4 per cent. only a year ago. Suddenly, therefore, the great fiction of constantly reducing unemployment—which we have heard from numerous Labour Members today—is shown in perspective and, regrettably, it has some chance of being reversed. Scottish manufactured exports have fallen throughout 2001. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine knows only too well the importance of exports to the Scottish economy, hut the rate for the third quarter of 2001 is 5 per cent. below the rate only a year prior to that. There has been a collapse in its contributions in the UK. As has been mentioned, the UK economy has slipped, in terms of competitiveness, from ninth to nineteenth in the world, and the balance of trade—a figure that is quoted ever-decreasingly—has been in deficit in every quarter since the fourth quarter of 1998.
Scotland's progress is not looking terrific. Sadly, the "Silicon Glen" view of Scotland—the progress that we made in the 1980s—is part of history. We have an image of a fast-track economy, but over the past 30 years the Scottish economy has grown by an average of only 2.1 per cent. per annum compared with a UK average of 2.3 per cent. There is therefore a history of underperformance in the Scottish economy, but it has been deteriorating. It has not exceeded the UK rate in any quarter since 1997. We are falling further and further behind. Our GDP fell by 0.4 per cent. in the third quarter of 2001, while that of the UK increased. The Budget did
72
nothing to reverse the trends that are now emerging in the Scottish economy. Fuel tax continues to cripple residents north of the border, and, to take one tax proposal at random, the aggregates tax looms like a death knell on the horizon for many of our small economies.
I want to focus on the use of national insurance contributions to raise revenue for the public sector, particularly for the health service, as such contributions have a special effect in several ways. They are, without question, a tax on jobs and on employment opportunities. They are not a tax on savings or on investments; they are a tax on employing people. They cut in at a lower rate—those earning a low salary per week start paying national insurance before they start paying tax. They are top-limited—there is a level of earnings per week beyond which employees do not pay any more national insurance. Crucially, however—I want to concentrate on this—they are paid in increasing percentages by the struggling self-employed. This area has been totally ignored by the Government. The smaller the business, the greater the significance of this tax, particularly for those who are self-employed. Importantly, however, this is a very good public relations exercise. The Government quote a figure of 1 per cent., but it is actually 2 per cent.—1 per cent. levied on the employer, and 1 per cent. on the employee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley)—who, sadly, is no longer present—mentioned, it is a stealth tax. My hon. Friend was queried by Labour Members, but it is a stealth tax, because 1 per cent. is actually 2 per cent. It is also a double whammy, because it has an effect on our public services. The increased cost of national insurance to the health service in Scotland is estimated at £100 million.
As I said, the increase in the national insurance contribution is an extra burden on the self-employed. The Government seem fixated on big business at the expense of small business. They forget that only 27 per cent. of businesses in Scotland arc incorporated. The average self-employed income in Scotland is £13,890. The average employed income is £21,800. People who are earning less are therefore paying more as a result of this Budget. There are 3 million self-employed people in the UK, and I suggest to Labour Members that this action will not be forgotten easily.
I welcome the review of company law to which the Secretary of State referred earlier. The matter requires consideration, and we should no longer penalise the smallest businesses—those who can afford it least. Since the Enterprise Bill has turned out to do nothing for enterprise, I hope that, when the company law Bill is introduced, it will deliver what is promised.
Clearly, the national insurance increase impacts significantly on small businesses in my constituency, particularly those struggling to cope with foot and mouth disease. Small farmers, most of whom are self-employed, are now paying national insurance at a higher rate than previously, even though their farm incomes are 70 per cent. less than in 1997. Tiny family businesses in the tourism sector, which have been given nothing in compensation for the losses that they faced last year, are now in an even worse situation than they were in a week ago.

73
It is no surprise that fewer businesses are being formed in Scotland. In the fourth quarter of 2001, the number was 3,856, which was down 3.8 per cent. on the year. It is no coincidence that Labour Governments are delivering fewer new company formations, more receiverships and a threat to Scotland's entrepreneurial history. Small firms are also in dismay at their new role in delivering the Government's welfare agenda. Changes to working families tax credit and children's tax credit are imposing new burdens in terms of red tape and the down time in managing businesses. Firms are delivering benefits when they should be earning money.
On e-filing, the Secretary of State made the incredible suggestion in her opening remarks that a form is not a form if it is e-filed. That is a ridiculous proposal. E-filing does nothing to reduce the burdens for small businesses. It only changes the method by which red tape is delivered to Government.
In the few minutes remaining to me, I want to flag up a double whammy that faces Scotland. We are paying the extra national insurance and the extra tax burden that has been levied on us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Who is to say, however, when tax is mentioned beside spend, and investment is mentioned beside innovation, that the reform in public services that is being promised south of the border will be delivered in Scotland? Taxpayers in Scotland are coughing up, but will they receive from the Scottish Executive the reforms that are being promised by a Secretary of State south of the border? So far, the indications are not promising. There is no requirement to spend the Barnett formula amount on health north of the border as there is south of the border.
More importantly, however, the Secretary of State for Health's reforms, limited though they are, are being rejected north of the border. Only 10 days ago, the Scottish First Minister was in Perth to sign a concordat with the unions and the health service, and to sign a memorandum of understanding, as if they did not understand each other well enough. North of the border, the Scottish Executive's idea of working with the private sector is to nationalise hospitals. It was announced on Budget day that negotiations are under way to buy the Health Care International hospital in Clydebank. The Scottish Executive's great idea about working with the private sector on health is to buy the hospital—its bricks and mortar—rather than to treat the patients who are there in the first place.
I conclude that this Budget will do nothing for Scotland's economy.
6.59 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: It is possible to exaggerate the benefits and disbenefits of a Budget; we have heard a fair array of such speeches this afternoon. In my business career, the key issue was the macroeconomic environment within which my business operated. Individual Budget measures, while interesting, challenging and requiring further thought, were as nothing compared with that environment. The main factors were low inflation and low interest rates; linked to that was a low public debt, because a high public debt tends to force up interest rates, and broadly predictable terms of trade.
I did business under Conservative Governments, and there were many times when I did not feel entirely happy with the environment in which I operated. The position
74
now is that most businesses know where they stand and can plan clearly into the future; they can judge investment decisions realistically and reduce the risks of those decisions. Those are critical factors in deciding whether the Budget continues the trend of a number of the Chancellor's Budgets to strengthen our country's business environment. It easily passes that test. There is limited fiscal tightening, which should be of some comfort to the Monetary Policy Committee in any judgment that it makes about raising interest rates in future; that benefit is modest, but of some value nevertheless. There are steps, in the short term at least, to reduce slightly the public debt in the next couple of years, as we would expect, although predictions of borrowing and spending by the Government and, for that matter, all previous Governments, are subject to large margins of error; that is stuff to which we will return later, with substantial amendment and correction to the Red Book. The key issue for me is whether the macro-economic environment within which business operates is satisfactory for planning into the future; it is.
There are useful supply side measures, including further support for training; in an intervention, I commented on research and development assistance, which is excellent and will help a number of companies in my constituency. There are lower tax rates for smaller businesses; lower compliance costs for dealing with VAT; a simplification of the regime of buying and selling businesses, which has not been referred to in our debate, but is of value to people who run small businesses and seek to trade in the skills that they have built up and the enterprise that they have created. Those are all positive changes.
The impact of increased national insurance on business costs has understandably been raised by Opposition Members, and I appreciate that it certainly falls into the category of challenges that I would have had to work out how to deal with if I were running a business. However, it is also fair to say—I do not necessarily offer this as an argument in favour of the change—that if one looks carefully at the Red Book, as well as this country's record on labour productivity and the low level of capital investment on which several Members have commented, the change will alter the balance between the employment of labour and the employment of capital in the economy. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of judgment; we shall no doubt return in future to the question whether it has had a positive impact on productivity. Nevertheless, people will grapple with that issue when deciding how to run their businesses in the future.
The first key risk for the Budget in the macro-economic environment is that the recovery of the United States, on which a fair number of assumptions have been based, may turn out to be not as fast or extensive as expected. Personally, I judge that to be a relatively low risk, but it is nevertheless significant because of our country's unusually large dependence on trade across the Atlantic. The second risk is that the disturbance and violence in the middle east will have an impact on oil prices, which will have an effect on the global economy. That is not something that we can predict accurately; everyone in the House prays that it is not the case, but none the less we can see that it is a possibility in the current climate. The third key risk, which has not been touched on, is the impact of convergence with the euro. A hidden benefit of the fall in the euro—certainly a well hidden benefit for any exporting business—is that a low euro supports low

75
inflation in this country. If the euro rises against sterling in future, as has been predicted for a number of years although it has not substantially proved to be the case, there will be an impact on inflation which will require the attention of the Monetary Policy Committee.
If we look ahead to the challenges, as opposed to risks, of the next year—all challenges, however, are risks if they fail to be met—the first, touched on in the Red Book, is the need for increased market and labour market liberalisation in Europe. In spite of grim warnings from the Opposition, we still have significant advantages in many sectors which cannot be fully exploited in the restricted marketplaces of the European Union, so any rapid progress on liberalising those markets and persuading some of our European partners to adopt reforms that we have already accepted here would be greatly to our benefit.
Secondly, we face the continuing challenge of skills improvement in this country. Under this Government, we have made significant progress in primary education, which needs to be driven right the way through the learning range—essentially, our whole working life—hut that process has only just begun. I very much welcome the fact that Derbyshire learning and skills council has been named as part of a pilot programme, allowing it to experiment with the best way of delivering training at work. We still have a great deal to learn about how best to develop skills in employment.
The third challenge on which I want to dwell in the last couple of minutes of my speech is public sector delivery. There is no doubt whatever that many people fully recognise that paying for a quality health service costs money. People are not fools; I met quite a lot of people at the weekend and no one suggested that improvement could be had for nothing or, as is commonly said, by saving a few bob on what we wasted on the dome. Most people recognised that big money was required. However, there is scepticism about whether that money will in fact deliver change. One difficulty is the confusion surrounding the word "modernisation", which, in relation to organisational change, is often cited with efficiency. It is essential to move away from damning the management and bureaucracy in some of our key public services and recognise that many of those people are required to deliver complicated change in extremely complex organisations; they need our assistance and support, rather than the backhanded criticism that we are used to handing out. There are therefore three messages: focus on a narrow range of objectives, thus reducing the number of goals in performance improvement, and empowering people closest to those goals to make sure that they deliver. I hope that those watchwords stay with the Ministers who have to deliver the objectives of the Budget.
7.9 Pm
Mr. John Baron: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I refer hon. Members to my declaration of interests.
Unfortunately, the Budget will cause more harm than good over the longer term, for yet again taxes are being raised by a Government who believe that they know best how to spend our money. History suggests that that is not the case. Since 1997 every man, woman and child in the
76
United Kingdom is paying £30 a week extra in tax, yet Labour has failed to deliver improvements in our public services.
As we know, NHS waiting lists are rising again, with more than 100,000 people waiting to get on the waiting list. Teacher vacancies doubled last year and truancy has risen. Street crime and particularly violent crime are rising fast, with an increase of about 33 per cent. in Essex over the past three years.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that according to the national crime statistics, under the present Government the level of overall crime has dropped, rather than doubling, as it did under the last Conservative Government?
Mr. Baron: What concerns people most as regards crime, certainly in my constituency, is the level of street crime and violent crime. There is no denying that that has risen significantly in the past few years. People are asking why, when they are paying more in tax.
In addition, our rail network is deteriorating, with train—
Mr. Jones: I repeat my question. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the level of overall crime under the present Government has gone down rather than up—yes or no?
Mr. Baron: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that figure is debatable. From the point of view of my constituents—I am in the House to represent my constituency—crime overall is increasing. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that, I suggest that he comes and visits my constituency. Street crime, violent crime, burglaries and car crime are significantly on the up and are causing great consternation to my constituents.
One of the main reasons why improvements have not been forthcoming is that the Government believe that the state always knows best, so they legislate, regulate and interfere far too much. Such an approach makes for much waste, bureaucracy and red tape. That is perhaps no better illustrated than in the case of small businesses. When I speak to the owners of small business in the constituency and at Parliament, it is clear that their main concern is the rising burden of regulation and taxes.
I undertook a constituency-wide survey asking businesses their views before the Budget. The overriding wish was for less Government interference in the running of businesses. Indeed, 40 per cent. of the respondents spend between one and five days a month dealing with red tape and bureaucracy, and a further 20 per cent. spend one week or more doing so. That is time that could be spent chasing orders. And no wonder. Research shows that more than 4,600 new regulations were introduced in 2001. That is the highest figure on record and represents a 50 per cent. increase since 1997. The Budget does nothing to relieve the red tape and tax burdens on business, particularly small businesses.
The Chancellor made much of the fact that this was a Budget for small business—a Budget for enterprise. However, as we have heard, employers will not be impressed by the 1 per cent. rise in national insurance contributions, which is the equivalent of a 3 per cent. increase in corporation tax, once both measures are equated. That single tax increase more than negates all the Chancellor's other supposedly business-friendly measures.

77
As a business man myself, it seems to me that the Chancellor misunderstands the importance of cash flow, as opposed to profits, to a small business. By imposing a tax on jobs, the Government have made a mockery of a Budget that was aimed at enterprise. As Nick Goulding, chief executive of the Forum of Private Business, said immediately after the Budget:
"National insurance is a tax on jobs and comes straight out of the bottom line. This will be a further disadvantage to employers."
John Mann: Does the Budget improve or worsen the cash flow position in relation to VAT?
Mr. Baron: The measures relating to VAT have been broadly welcomed by business, but they do not make that much difference. What does make a difference, to employers in particular, is a rise in national insurance contributions. That affects cash flow.
John Mann rose—
Mr. Baron: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must make progress.
In a letter to the Financial Times on Friday, the Foreign Banks and Securities Houses Association warned that the change to the tax treatment of UK branches of foreign banks
"will result in business going abroad and short term gain and long term destruction of the best industry in the UK. Our competitor countries must be laughing with anticipation."
There is already evidence to suggest that growing Government interference and taxes are beginning to damage our economy. We have heard statistics showing how we have slipped down the competitiveness league table from ninth to nineteenth since 1997, while our productivity growth has fallen. We are storing up problems for ourselves, and those chickens will come home to roost.
The subject is important to me because one of the main reasons why I sit on the Conservative Benches is that I believe that the relief of poverty should be one of the main priorities of politics. That can be better brought about if we foster personal freedoms within the rule of law, if we encourage enterprise and if we allow businesses, especially small businesses, to breathe and thrive. Such an approach will create a more prosperous economy and more wealth, from which the Government can take their rightful share in order to help the truly disadvantaged in society. That will not happen if the Government pile regulations, costs and taxes on to businesses, because that will hinder enterprise and eventually our ability to help those most in need.
Unfortunately, the Budget continues to make life difficult for entrepreneurs. To what end? Simply throwing money at the NHS, which in its present form suffers from too much bureaucracy and waste, and which is in need of great reform, is not responsible government. We know, for example, that for the first time in the history of the NHS, there are more bureaucrats than beds in the system. We also know from the NHS's own audit that about 15 per cent. of its budget—some £9 billion—is being wasted. In any other business, there would be a major restructuring if such figures came to light.
If money alone were the answer, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should all have a better NHS than England, but they do not. In terms of total health spending
78
as a percentage of gross national product, all three countries spend more than England, but their health outcomes and system performances are in many cases worse than in England. For example, in terms of expenditure per person, whereas in England the figure is £740, in Northern Ireland it is £819 and in Wales £822, yet waiting lists there are worse than in England.
Mr. David: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in Wales, for example, there are more people who are sick than in England?
Mr. Baron: I do not see how that contradicts what I said. More money is spent per head of the population on health, yet waiting lists are longer. That is the simple fact.
Money alone is not the answer. Even in England, where spending on the NHS has been rising, as we well know, the system has not been getting better. Waiting lists are rising again; people are waiting longer in accident and emergency departments; there has been a 50-odd per cent. increase in cancelled operations since 1997; and the odds of surviving cancer in Britain are among the worst in Europe.
Contrary to the scaremongering of Labour Members, we Conservatives do believe in the ideals of the NHS—first-class health care available to all, regardless of the ability to pay. We have been looking with an open mind at the ways in which we can learn from abroad, for health care is better in other countries. That compares with a Chancellor who appears to have a closed mind on health care. He says that we have nothing to learn from other countries, despite the fact that, for example, Germany has no waiting lists, and in Denmark patients have a legal right to treatment within four weeks of seeing their GP. That is why the Budget is a wasted opportunity.
In conclusion, there is one thing for which we can be thankful with regard to the Budget. We now know what Labour stands for. The Government have reverted to the old habit of tax and spend. In many respects, Labour's intentions are clearer now than they have been for many years. The Chancellor is the first Labour Chancellor since the 1960s to raise taxes on income through conviction, rather than necessity.
Since 1997 we have never really known what Labour stood for, but now the issue has been resolved. By throwing money at the NHS, the Government have adopted a political approach more akin to the European social model than to US economic liberalism, despite all the evidence to suggest that European growth rates have been far lower and European unemployment far higher than in the US. That is why the Budget is bad news for this country, and why I cannot support it.
7.19 pm
Mr. Skôn Simon: I am grateful for being called. I hope that you will bear with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I start by noting the following. Although the Secretary of State and the Economic Secretary are not in their places, the Paymaster General is, and I could not help but observe that she makes the third member of the ministerial team from economic Departments on the Treasury Bench today who is a woman—unlike all the Front Benchers and Back Benchers of all the Opposition parties for at least the past several hours. It occurred to me what an excellent

79
example that was of the difference between the genuine commitment to real, constructive change among Labour Members, and the meaningless, empty rhetoric of Opposition Members, which is remarkably emblematic of debate on the Budget.
Somebody asked me this morning what I was going to talk about this afternoon
Mr. Heath: And the hon. Gentleman still has not decided.
Mr. Simon: I was about to say that the question was handy because I had not quite decided. Having thought about it for a second or two, I said that I thought that I wanted to say something that was staunchly pro-business and equally staunchly anti-whingeing. Having heard the shameless splurge of special pleading, particularly from the Opposition Front Bench, I realise that that was a sound judgment, with which I am happy to continue.
The Prime Minister used to be well known for frequently offering the trade unions a principle for their edification. The very same principle could be equally soundly offered to Conservative Members and the business community: what they can and ought to expect from a Labour Government is fairness, which they are getting, but not favours. To listen to Conservative Members, one would think that the Budget contained revenue-raising measures targeted solely and exclusively on the business community that nobody else will pay and that are apocalyptic and unprecedented in their scale and style. The truth is that business will pay an extra 1 per cent. in national insurance contributions—and so will employees and the self-employed.
That reminds me that I was a little confused by the arithmetic of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), who is the Scottish parliamentary Conservative party. He said that the increase was really 2 per cent. because it was 1 per cent. for employers and 1 per cent. for employees. If he adds the self-employed, that makes 3 per cent; if he takes account of the fact that I pay the extra I per cent., that makes 4 per cent; if he adds one of my hon. Friends, that makes 5 per cent. Before we know it, we have reached billions of per cent. That is very strange arithmetic.
It is equally amazingly strange to describe the national insurance increase as a stealth tax. It is a stealth tax only in the sense that a stranger in the street sticking a £50 note in somebody's ear is a stealthy gift, or another stranger dropping a fridge on somebody's head is a piece of stealthy refrigeration. Whatever tax or non-tax it is, it is certainly not a stealth tax£and nor is it a tax on jobs. It is a tax on employers and employees, and not a tax on those who do not work, as Opposition Members know perfectly well but choose not to recognise.
I heard somebody on the radio the other day whom one might describe as a business leader saying that it is not the responsibility of business to pay for health care. That pretty much underlies where Opposition Members have been coming from and, fundamentally, is not only not true but nonsense. What does that gentleman think his existing national insurance contributions go towards? What does he think happens to his corporation tax, business rates or the VAT that he helps to collect? The notion that business
80
is somehow separate from the services that the Government are charged with providing for the state is illiterate.
Since Germany began to follow what hon. Members will find Germans call the Blair model and instituted what the House will find the Germans call Blairite reforms, it may have overtaken Britain as the European country with the lowest business taxation. We are almost certainly second.
Mr. Baron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Simon: No, I will not because, fortunately, when I tried to intervene on the much more experienced and knowledgeable hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), he explained to me that there is no time on these occasions to take interventions. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) is not as experienced. A more experienced Tory showed me the way earlier. I can only take my lead from those who have been in this House longer and who doubtless know much more than I do.
We already have one of the very lowest business taxation environments in Europe. Both key rates of corporation tax have been cut. In addition—
Mr. Baron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Simon: No, I have just explained that I am not going to.
In addition, as has been extraordinarily resolutely ignored by Conservative Members, the business community in this country pays a massively lower contribution to the health care of its employees than business communities in comparable countries such as France, Germany and the United States. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) refused to address that when hon. Members pressed him, and that is because there is no answer to it. Conservatives" arguments are special pleading, illiterate, self-interested and absurd.
Mr. Baron: What about German unemployment?
Mr. Simon: That does not bear any response. [Interruption.] German unemployment is two and a half times that in the UK—and that is supposed to be a problem for Labour Members? I think not.
To continue with the specifics, as a former VAT-registered small business, I am perfectly well aware how naturally resentful many small business people are at being the unpaid and entirely unthanked collection agents for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. There is no doubt that it is thankless and irritating. Ministers might do well to consider the point, which is rarely raised but has often occurred to me. In that context, a Budget that lifts 700,000 small businesses out of the VAT environment can only be welcome and positive.
I shall not go on at great length about all the other pro-business measures in the Budget, because others have done so and will do so. Suffice it to say that, as well as the things that I have mentioned, there are a volume-based research and development tax credit, an extra £30 million for training and development, a community investment tax credit, a community development venture fund, changes to the limits on non-residential stamp duty,

81
implementation of recommendations on e-filing, reform of the business incubation fund, and so on. Those are just the tightly defined, enterprise-specific elements of the innovations in this Budget alone.
The notion that we have had other than a business-friendly Budget from a business-friendly Government is nonsensical. The bottom line is that the best economic indicators for generations are the best thing for business in this country. That is what it really comes down to. They make far more difference than anything else, and are proof of a business-friendly Government. If we were not business-friendly, we would not be able to deliver such economic success. Economic success, as one would have thought Conservative Members might realise, derives from business.
7.29 pm
Mr. David Laws: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), I welcome the main thrust of the Budget to increase investment in the national health service. Indeed, that can be no surprise because my party has campaigned for that for many years. The Red Book is entitled "The strength to make long-term decisions", and our only regret is that the Government did not have the strength and purpose to make these decisions earlier in their time in office.
Although I want to concentrate on NHS reform, I have two other issues to raise. The first relates to the Government's borrowing targets and projections. The second concerns the increasing tendency to complicate the tax system. The Chancellor said that he is trying to build in an additional measure of prudence in his projections for the public finances. As a consequence, he has raised his projection for the surplus that he will have for the next few years. However, when we consider the reasons for the increase in surplus on a current balance basis, we see that it is largely a result not of a fundamental improvement in the projection for the economy, but simply of the fact that the Government have decided unilaterally to revise up their forecast of the projected growth of the economy over the next few years. That development can hardly be described as prudent, especially in the light of their failure to make progress on their agenda to improve productivity. Although the National Audit Office has loyally done its usual job of rubber-stamping the changes in the assumptions in the Budget, it noted that the change to the growth forecast was less prudent than the previous projections.
We also notice that in spite of the fact that the European Union criticised the Government in January for their Budget projections—in particular, for projecting that they would borrow to fund their overall position during the next few years—they have moved further from achieving a balance. Specifically, they have increased the borrowing figures in 2005–06 and 2006–07 from £13 billion, which was set in the pre-Budget report, to £17 billion or £18 billion. The Chancellor still has work to do to persuade his colleagues in the EU that the growth and stability pact needs fundamental reform. There is no doubt that the Government are a considerable way from meeting the requirements of the pact. Indeed, they are moving in the wrong direction.
I support a reconfiguration of the growth and stability pact. It is wrong that it should limit our room for manoeuvre on fiscal policy, especially when we have a
82
strong budgetary position. The Government need to address that problem with our European partners if they are not to be cautioned yet again for their projections over the next few years.
The Chancellor is increasingly obsessed with complicating the tax system. He claimed once again that he was abolishing a tax in the Budget and referred to measures to reform betting duty. However, the thrust of the rest of the Government's tax policy since 1997 has been geared towards complicating, rather than simplifying, the tax system. It is easy for hon. Members to welcome each individual measure that the Government introduce to increase the number of allowances and reliefs in the tax system. For example, it is tempting to welcome the vaccines tax credit, the research and development tax credit, the small brewers tax reliefs, the film tax reliefs and the additional corporate gains tax loopholes that have been introduced over the years. What we perhaps fail to recognise when we welcome each of those measures is the way in which they not only make the tax system more complicated, but require higher levels of other taxes to fund them.
When we consider what has happened this year to one of the Chancellor's favourite wheezes, we see how such measures can go disastrously wrong. In 1997, the Government introduced tax reliefs for the British film industry, supposedly at a cost of £50 million a year. In 2001, further changes were made to that tax relief that were forecast to cost an extra £50 million. The annual cost of the measure is now forecast to be £360 million, an extraordinary increase since it was conceived, and the Chancellor expects us to give him credit for introducing measures to rein in the effects of that tax relief by reducing it by £295 million in the year ahead. I would prefer it if the Chancellor did not introduce greater reliefs and allowances, but concentrated his resources instead on taking people on the lowest incomes out of tax all together. I hope that that will be part of his agenda for future Budgets.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government's measures on the NHS. When Conservative Members talk about the failure of the NHS and the perceived inability of investment to make a difference, they should remember that the major problem for the Government in the last Parliament was that they stuck to the spending plans set by the Conservatives. There was little increase in NHS expenditure for the first two years and what there was was swamped entirely by the costs of increased pay, technology and dealing with an ageing population. Those are regular cost increases and it is clear that the NHS needs money that covers more than inflation for it just to stay as it is.
We have yet to try a properly funded health service. However, I would rather the investment announced by the Government than the policy described by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron). He said that the Government were irresponsible to put money into the NHS. In the absence of a serious policy from the Conservative party either to reform or to invest in the NHS, my constituents would consider it far more irresponsible to stick with the existing funding of the NHS. Although many people have to wait excessively long times to receive treatment, and in some cases die before they get it, we cannot wait for the Conservative party to come up with a policy.

83
The Government should be conscious, however, that in giving an impression prior to the general election that they did not need to increase taxes and in attempting in the Budget statement to find mechanisms for raising revenue that do not involve breaching their promises on income tax, they have damaged their reputation with the electorate, who believe that promises on taxation have been broken. They have also been forced to introduce a mechanism—the increase in national insurance contributions—that is far less sensible than an increase in income tax. A day after the Budget, the editor of The Idler magazine—one of the people who the Secretary of State said praised the increase in national insurance contributions—commented that the move to tax employment rather than income was
"a step forward on our mission to return nobility to pursuit of idleness".
It is odd, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said, that the Government are determined to tax employment rather than income. The newspapers over the weekend reported some of the effects that that will have on those very rich people who will not pay the national insurance contributions and will, as a consequence, be better off when they should be making a bigger contribution through income tax.
Parliament should continue to debate the NHS and its funding. The Government should pay more attention to some of the measures included in a document issued by the Treasury. Although it did not receive much attention on Budget day, it compares various forms of health funding worldwide. We should consider measures such as social insurance when we think about how we fund the NHS beyond the current injection of finance. However, I infinitely prefer the concrete measures set out in the Budget to improve the NHS to the policy vacuum in the Conservative party.
7.39 pm
Mr. Iain Luke: Over the long years of parliamentary history, the raising of taxes, the setting out of spending plans based on Government priorities and people's needs, and finding the financial means to tackle issues of public policy have provided many of the major issues of debate and controversy heard in the Chamber. It might be worth while saying that the onset of my contribution stems from the way in which the introduction of national insurance was fought tooth and nail by the Conservative party in 1909. It is not surprising that we find Conservative Members still battling against any increases in national insurance contributions, even if there is to be spend on the national health.
The Budget, the financial focus of the nation's public life, means many different things to different constituencies, communities, businesses and interest groups throughout the United Kingdom. We as Members all come to the debate with different demands and agendas. However, at the end of the day, if the many appetites seeking succour at this supper are to be satisfied, one underlying premise has to be met.
The overall health of the economy must be sound and capable of sustaining and satisfying the many credible claims made on the Treasury's chests. Whatever one's political persuasion, it is mischievous and misleading to
84
argue that the United Kingdom's economy is not sound at present or that the Government's economic management has not been a major factor in creating the unparalleled economic stability that we now enjoy.
All the economic indicators put the sophistry of the Conservative party to the sword—be they interest rates, inflation, employment, house prices, job creation or Britain's ability to cope with the global economic downturn. The Government and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have set a standard that has rarely been met by previous Governments in creating a macro-economic climate. It is one that has seldom been enjoyed by the inhabitants of these islands. This achievement has put in place the foundations that will enable Parliament to work with other organisations in civil society, including the trade unions, to build a society that will aim to achieve social justice and a better life for the many, rather than the privileged few.
Like many Labour Members, I have at the top of my agenda the need to ensure a more prosperous country for my constituents to share in. The mainstay of the prosperity enjoyed by so many so far during the Government's first term has been the creation of 1.5 million new jobs, and that job creation must be maintained. We must ensure that that prosperity is sustained. Job creation must bring a better future for many more citizens.
In the run-up to 17 April, I was looking for a better and more conducive tax regime to allow the smaller to medium-sized enterprises in my constituency to flourish, to create more growth and therefore, as a consequence, to create more employment. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is doing that through his Budget.
Employment issues and the creation of jobs are an area of prime concern to the area that I serve, with its unemployment rate standing at 7.2 per cent., which is significantly higher than the national average. It is therefore vital that we create a financial structure that enables entrepreneurs and enterprise to establish themselves and to create new forms of economic activity. Given the measures that the Treasury are introducing, it is clear that for economic growth to mean anything it must be shared equally throughout the country.
I am happy to acknowledge the real economic benefits that will accrue to Dundee with the location of the new Department for Work and Pensions offices and the Inland Revenue's new call centre, which will bring in total 1,000 new jobs to the city. That will be much welcomed.
I hope that the Budget will help Dundee build on its considerable success in promoting itself and on its continuing efforts to capitalise on the academic endeavours of its two universities to bring new jobs into the market, especially biomedical research technology and computer games.
Only recently, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Glycocel Ltd. in Dundee, a new concern which is a good example of the fruits of a biomedical research programme that has flourished at Dundee university. Indeed, it has been encouraged to grow through a joint university/city council-promoted incubator project. It is providing a crucible for the promotion of economic production based on successful academic research.
The restructuring of the business incubation fund announced in the Budget should, I hope, enable further success in the vital restructuring of Dundee's economic base. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has introduced measures to assist manufacturing in general.

85
At a positive meeting in February, which I think the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) missed, the Scottish chamber of commerce at Dover house presented statistics that showed an encouraging snapshot of the Scottish economy during the last quarter of 2001. The statistics produced by the Fraser of Alexander institute clearly underlined the success of the Government's management of the economy, with the figures showing encouraging levels of consumer spending, increasing house prices and improving tourism figures.
There have always been the problems clearly identified in manufacturing—in Scotland, Wales and the United Kingdom generally. I welcome the proposal contained in my right hon. Friend's pre-Budget statement last year, and I applaud the steps that he has taken in the Budget to help British industry to become more competitive and more productive by reducing the tax burden, by promoting research and development and by encouraging training and a greater ability to invest in people. With the additional funding of £30 million being made available to small firms to help them in gaining Investors in People awards, this will be extremely helpful.
I hope that this will help British business to become more competitive and more productive, and as a result safeguard jobs.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the freezing of petrol and diesel duties. When the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked why we had not replaced the levy on oil in the North sea by increasing the tax on diesel and petrol he was being disingenuous in relation to the facts that pertained last year.
I argue that the freezing of petrol and diesel duties is welcome, not because it placates motorists in general but because fuel prices play a significant role in the cost of commodities produced at a distance from the market. Given the shambles of the rail freight industry, with the Railtrack debacle and the virtual blockade of the channel tunnel, which has seriously restricted Scotland's rail haulage contacts with the continent—in some instances it has been cut by 80 per cent. owing to the inactivity of the French authorities to police asylum seekers trying to gain access to the UK—road connections and transport costs are doubly important.
Given the proximity of the new ferry terminal at Rosyth to both our constituencies, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I will welcome the beginning of the new direct ferry services from Scotland to the continent next month, and the benefits that that will bring to hauliers and other businesses throughout Scotland.
I am confident that the steps taken by my right hon. Friend are the right ones, and the ones that will continue to promote the economic health and growth of the UK. They will continue the Government's great record of creating new jobs. The steps outlined in my right hon. Friend's Budget last week will provide the conditions and stimulants that many were seeking to ensure that the problems facing manufacturing were tackled. Small to medium-sized businesses will be encouraged to grow, and the opportunity for new start-ups will be enhanced.
I especially welcome the proposals for the new community investment tax credit, and the £40 million of community development venture funding that will be put aside and launched in May. This is a treasure chest that I and those involved in the promotion of economic activity in Dundee will be seeking to raid before too long.
86
Certainly the national focus on strategy for new start-ups is long overdue, especially in the area that I represent. The Department of Trade and Industry should be encouraged to become more engaged in such areas to help growth and to provide advice and support for new and aspiring entrepreneurs. The new helpline proposals and starting packs will certainly aid in the process. I hope that the telephone numbers will be widely advertised and that the packs will be heavily promoted.
In presenting the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer aptly referred to a discussion on the health service. He said that what we decide in this debate
"will not only determine the conditions of our public service but define the character of our country."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 589.]
I strongly believe that the essence of this country's character should be a responsible and responsive nature, caring and providing compassionately for those in need—a nation with a shared and collective sense of duty and service, striving to recreate an enterprising and creative country in which access to economic and social opportunity and welfare is based on equality for all.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken the necessary measures in the Budget to ensure that the citizens of Dundee and the people of Britain will share both in that analysis and in the prosperity and economic well-being that they deserve, which will be produced by the Budget.
7.49 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk: In opening this debate, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry claimed that this was a Budget for enterprise that provided opportunities for all. I should like to test that claim and consider in particular the impact of the Budget on two especially enterprising groups: the self-employed and small businesses. I do so as someone who was both director of a small firm and self-employed for the 12 years preceding my entry into the House.
The self-employed are vital to the economy, not least in Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) pointed out. They are often the leading innovators and are usually the ones who create the jobs and wealth in our local communities. Self-employment also provides an essential flexibility in the labour market, enabling businesses to respond quickly to changes in supply and demand. More importantly, however, self-employment epitomises an enterprise culture. It means that no matter who someone is, and whatever their background, if they have the skill, the will to work and the ambition, they can be their own boss and stand on their own two feet. So if the Budget were indeed about promoting enterprise and creating opportunities for all, it would have to tackle the needs, concerns and aspirations of the self-employed. It would have to cut their taxes, end any discrimination and slash the red tape that currently holds back budding entrepreneurs.
It is true that the Budget offers some tax cuts for small businesses, but many people fail to realise that those cuts are available solely to companies. That means that the self-employed, who are unincorporated and run two thirds of all small businesses, are specifically excluded from each of the tax cuts outlined by the Chancellor last Wednesday. They are excluded for no reason other than

87
their legal status. I therefore ask the Paymaster General why she has forgotten the self-employed and turned her back on the freelancer, family firm and local partnership. Are they not enterprising? Do they not merit the same tax cuts as their incorporated competitors?
It is fair to say that there was one tax change for which the self-employed were thought good enough. It is a change that affects their bottom line and which 85 per cent. of self-employed people specifically said they did not want. I refer, of course, to the substantial rise in national insurance contributions. For many self-employed people, the increase will mean a hike of anything between £250 and more than £1,000 in extra costs. No tax rise is welcome, but what a brilliant tax to choose to discourage the self-employed. If there is one Government charge that the self-employed particularly resent, it is national insurance. The reason why is that they pay twice: once through class 2 contributions for the benefits that they receive, and again through class 4 contributions, which most of them see as a tax on their enterprise. That is what self-employed people in my constituency tell me they feel about the Budget. Despite all the glossy reports and all the Minister's warm words, that is the culture that the Government are creating. They are a Government who have turned their back on so many of the entrepreneurs whom they claim to support.
I should like to turn now to the smaller businesses that are incorporated and consider how the regulatory changes in the Budget affect them. I welcome the significant increase in the VAT threshold, which will undoubtedly help and is welcome in that context. However, a minor change in the VAT regime is not enough. Before the Budget was announced, many people were expecting much more radical action. After all, manufacturing in the United Kingdom has now been in recession for more than a year. Although there are some glimmers of hope, manufacturing businesses needed real help in the Budget to reduce their costs and improve their profitability. They did not need a £3 billion hike in their costs. And it may even he £4 billion—who knows? As the director general of the Engineering Employers Federation said, £3 billion of extra costs is £3 billion less to invest.
One of the main complaints that businesses raise with me is that they now have to administer the Government"s social welfare programme through the pay-as-you-earn system. The payroll burden, which has been mentioned by one or two hon. Members, has grown substantially since 1997, ensuring that in addition to wages and non-wage costs, a business is required to spend its time and money running the complicated system of credits so loved by the Chancellor. That includes the working families tax credit, the stakeholder pension, student loans, attachment of earnings orders and child support tax credits. Together, those measures represent a serious drain on business resources. Of course, for small businesses, the burden is completely disproportionate. Even the Inland Revenue reckons that it costs a small business with up to about four employees £288 per person per year simply to administer the system, never mind wages or national insurance.
While I accept that the Chancellor acknowledged that problem in his Budget, I point out that he failed to act decisively. Instead of seeking to reduce the burden, the Government are planning merely to encourage firms to
88
file the same returns electronically, as the Secretary of State confirmed. Furthermore, the new tax credits, which are intended to be more responsive, will be more complicated and difficult to administer.
Will the Paymaster General please look again at the payroll burden, which is her direct responsibility? The system needs to be completely overhauled. Most important of all, the Government themselves and not business should now administer their social policies. Such an approach would have significant benefits, including reducing business costs, making Britain more competitive; cutting the cost of employing people without affecting their wages; and helping productivity by releasing people to do business rather than filling in forms—a special benefit for small businesses. Currently, the average small business spends up to 31 hours every month merely complying with Government regulations. Given that there are approximately 3.5 million small businesses, if such a change managed to reduce that time by only four hours a month, 21 million working days would be released back into the economy every single year. That could make a significant difference to the productivity about which the Chancellor claims to be concerned. I hope that the Paymaster General will respond positively to that point.
The Chancellor began his speech last Wednesday by promising a Budget that would create a culture for enterprise. Yet, as I have shown, he has excluded either by mistake or by intent the very entrepreneurs whom he praises from receiving the tax cuts, and then added insult to injury by raising the one tax that they all despise. Equally, the right hon. Gentleman"s acknowledgement of the burden on small businesses is contradicted by the heaping on of ever more bureaucracy and costs. Far from promoting enterprise, the Chancellor has taxed it; far from creating opportunity for all, he has excluded 3 million self-employed entrepreneurs. More talk, certainly, and more taxes, of course, but there is no real help in this Budget. That is the reality of this Budget for business, and that is what business will remember this Government for.
7.58 pm
Dr. Hywel Francis: I intend to speak about the importance of the principles of fairness and enterprise that are enshrined in the Budget for disabled people and their carers. I therefore wish to declare my membership of the Down"s Syndrome Association and the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the community union, which now includes the National League of the Blind and Disabled.
I warmly welcome the Budget as a major step forward for enterprise and fairness in Britain. As the TUC said recently, it is
"a defining moment in the future of the British health care system and the history of the present Government."
The Budget is therefore a step change on a journey of hope for the British people. The Chancellor is right that our task is to address through reform three challenges: enterprise, family prosperity for all and the renewal of our public services. We all endorse those challenges. To borrow from Raymond Williams, they are journeys of hope. As he said, we need resources to sustain those journeys, and I believe that the Chancellor has provided us with the intellectual, political and fiscal resources that we need. We must now use and develop those resources

89
imaginatively and in a truly Bevanite way, with pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will and a passion for social justice.
In that spirit, the challenge of enterprise needs to be accessible to all, as do family prosperity and improving public services. Too many people are still excluded from the full opportunities of enterprise: the homeless, ethnic minorities, school leavers without qualifications and disabled people. I would like to speak in the House on all those groups in the near future, but tonight I wish to focus on people with disabilities.
Many people with disabilities desire to go on that journey of hope from welfare to work. It is a precarious and difficult journey that requires learning and training opportunities as well as advocacy and professional support. If ever we needed to embed the enterprise culture in the culture of social justice, we need to do so with and for people with disabilities. I welcome the attention given to such people in the Red Book, in its commitment to help
"those who can and wish to work make a successful return to employment."
That is an enabling statement, rather than a prescriptive one, and it underpins the new deal for disabled people. Can we, however, learn by listening to the "forgotten army" of disabled people, as they have recently been called? Listening to such admirable organisations as the National League of the Blind and Disabled, we learn that too little is currently allocated to sustaining and developing this excellent new scheme, which will address the needs of 3.3 million people of working age who are not currently working. The most startling statistic that I have come across recently is that only two out of five people with a learning disability can expect to work during their lifetime. What can the spirit of fairness and enterprise do for this forgotten army?
The Government have supported such bodies as the Shaw trust, which has done much in recent years to assist disabled people towards independent living and new learning opportunities. The trust believes, as I do, that disabled people who have been out of work for a long time need more than changes in the law and tax breaks, important though those may be. They need new learning opportunities—negotiated by them—professional support and advice, and an advocate to convince employers of their worth. The new deal for disabled people and the supported employment programme will provide a major start, but far more investment is needed in such schemes, particularly given that disabled people make up nearly half the total of economically inactive people of working age in the United Kingdom.
Recent research at the university of Nottingham has shown the real value of the personal adviser system in the new deal for disabled people. It has shown that it is really working, as is the supported placement scheme. Only last Friday in my constituency, I saw the work of such schemes at the opening of the Karten computer training, education and communication centre in Llandarcy, where young disabled people will gain confidence, self-worth and a new quality of life through new information and communications technology learning opportunities, and support and advice systems. All this should lead to quality work opportunities. That is a true example of synergy between fairness and enterprise in my constituency. More of this needs to be done across the country.
Dr. Kevin Fitzpatrick, the commissioner for disability rights in Wales, has emphasised many times that when a disabled person works, there is a significant reduction in
90
benefit take-up. There is a positive contribution from tax and national insurance, and a reduction in calls on health and social services. Carers can return to work. The disabled person has greater power as a consumer, becomes an equal and valued citizen, grows in confidence and—most importantly—contributes positively to the life of the community and the economy in new ways. All this has started to happen since the return of the Labour Government in 1997.
Labour Members agree that the first step change as a result of this Budget will be the rebuilding of the national health service. The next—before the next Budget, we hope—will be to ensure that disabled people have the opportunity to be at the heart of our new enterprise economy, and to provide substantial new learning, advisory and advocacy support for the millions who wish to work.
I welcome the Chancellor"s recent commitment that, in the coming spending review, education will receive the priority it requires to deliver further substantial improvements. I am sure that he had in mind a high priority for disabled people in general. When we begin to achieve all this through his present Budget and the next spending review, we shall provide the real resources necessary for that essential journey of hope towards an enterprising and fair society for all. We have made a great start with this great Budget.
8.5 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban (: Before the Budget, I wrote to more than 1,000 businesses in my constituency to find out the issues that they faced, and the action that they wanted to see in the Budget. The overwhelming message that came back was about the burden of taxation—both in terms of the level of taxation and of the administrative burden. It was with that in mind that I listened to the Chancellor"s speech last Wednesday afternoon. Yes, there were measures in that speech that the businesses in my constituency might welcome. The optional flat rate for VAT is something that many businesses tackling VAT administration would wish to see. The lower corporation tax rate for smaller businesses was also a welcome change.
In a way, I welcome the money that the Government are providing for the electronic filing of Inland Revenue returns. It is a recognition of the problems imposed on business by the Government that they have had to introduce the payment of that money. The problems facing businesses include the administration of measures such as the working families tax credit, and the collection of repayments of student loans. Those are burdens that have been imposed by this Government. I welcome, therefore, their conversion to the recognition that businesses need help in this area, but it would have been better if the Government had tackled the causes, rather than the symptoms, of the work load that they have imposed on small businesses.
The Government"s failure to grasp the issues facing businesses was demonstrated by the imposition of the tax on jobs—the increase in national insurance contributions. That will hit the cost base of businesses and erode their profitability, and they will, of course, adjust their pattern of performance depending on how much they use labour. I am conscious that banks and supermarkets with very thin profit margins will be particularly impacted by the

91
increase in employers" national insurance costs, and will seek to restructure their organisations to bring about the shift from labour to capital that was mentioned earlier.
I am particularly concerned about the plight of small manufacturing companies. Many of those in my constituency exist because they have been able to target a niche market, perhaps one that requires a short lead time for production or short volumes. Because of the nature of the niche in which they operate and the techniques that they use, those businesses are dependent much more on labour and less on capital. I fear for the small manufacturing sector in this Budget, which was presented by the Chancellor as a Budget for enterprise. The effect that the increase in national insurance contributions will have on every employee, employer and self-employed business demonstrates that it is definitely not such a Budget.
The tax increases in the Budget were introduced to fuel the growth in public spending. I want to talk briefly about health and education. On education, the Chancellor announced that an increased amount of money was to go directly to schools. I do not know what strings are attached to that money, but it is very rare for this Government to give schools any money directly without specifying its purpose.
John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoban: I will not give way. I have only 10 minutes to speak.
Having talked to many of the head teachers in my constituency, I know that they are increasingly frustrated by the extent to which funds received from the Government are ring-fenced. A few weeks ago, I spoke to a head who was complaining that she had money in her capital budget, but nothing to spend it on. Meanwhile the resources that she received for the national grid for learning had almost been exhausted by the broadband access fees that she had been forced to pay. That epitomises the Government"s failure to trust heads to spend money wisely. They are for ever interfering with how heads spend money, forcing them to become either creative accountants—
John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoban: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
The genuine needs of schools are not met, because the money is not in the right pots.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Hoban: I am not giving way.
To spend the extra money wisely, we must consider public services reform, and no sector requires change more than the health service. The Science and Technology Committee, of which I am a member, reported last month on how money earmarked by the Government for cancer care is not reaching front-line services. That shows the need for change.
92
Parts of the Secretary of State for Health"s document "Delivering the NHS Plan" appear to have been written by right-wing think tanks, as they are full of covert references to free markets, choice and enterprise, cloaked in the language of partnership, diversity and pluralism. Reading the document shows the conversion that the Government have undergone. Chapter 6 refers to encouraging overseas profit-making health companies to come to this country to supplement NHS provision, which shows that the Government are embracing the market to an unexpected extent. We should welcome that.
I suspect that Labour Members and the trade unions will have an extensive debate with the Secretary of State about the conditions in which those private sector profit-making companies will operate and on what terms and conditions they will employ staff to provide services. Notwithstanding that, "Delivering the NHS Plan" shows that the NHS alone cannot deliver the health care that this country needs and that the Government recognise that the private sector"s role will grow.
The document also suggests that primary care trusts will have genuine commissioning power, but I suspect that the reality will be somewhat different. Paragraph 4.111 says that the Government will
"ensure that adequate safeguards exist so that the system encourages appropriate activity growth."
The autonomy of PCTs will perhaps be undermined by a Secretary of State who cannot resist the urge to meddle in the health service. If the Government want to devolve power to the front line as they say, they should trust PCTs to spend the money that they give them wisely. The reforms will fail if PCTs are not given the financial muscle to meet needs and deliver the health care that people in their area want.
That example shows that the Secretary of State has lost his nerve, and there are others. PCTs may buy services from acute hospital trusts on the basis of volume, quality and appropriateness, but no price competition will be allowed. I find that slightly surprising.
A couple of weeks ago, I was in the Chamber when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that price fixing is against the interests of consumers because it inhibits efficiency, productivity and competition, but it seems that the Secretary of State for Health does not understand her message. I suggest that she remind the Secretary of State for Health that price competition is effective in delivering extra services. Another aspect of the failure to pursue the logic properly is that efficiency savings are to be retained by the hospitals and not passed back to PCTs, so how will PCTs gain the resources needed to commission the new services?
Although "Delivering the NHS Plan" is riddled with contradictions, it recognises the fact that, after five years of centralisation, power should be decentralised. However, the caveats and qualifications show that the Government have yet to grasp the full importance of change. Until they do so, the taxes raised in the Budget will not be spent wisely and we will not have the health care that Britain deserves.
8.14 pm
Mark Tami: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I welcome the Budget, which is probably the most significant since our election in 1997. It sets out and offers substantial year-on-year increases in investment in the NHS—investment that has been needed for many years and which was and is possible only because the Government have successfully managed the economy.
Much has been made of the 1 per cent. national insurance contribution increase for employees and employers. The Conservatives and some of their friends)n the media claim that it will be the end of the world for business and, in some strange way, a tax on jobs. We have heard it all before. I recall that the Conservatives said that the minimum wage would lead to massive rises in unemployment and drive companies out of business. Equally, they said that giving workers fair and decent rights in the workplace, not to mention paternity and maternity leave, would be a disaster. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
Some people may have short memories, but others have not forgotten the days of 15 per cent. interest rates and mass unemployment, which did not create a fertile climate in which business could grow. Those conditions made investment precarious, to say the least. Of course, those were the years of Tory government and Tory economic mismanagement.
In contrast, under this Labour Government there has been sustained growth, a stable and expanding economy, the lowest interest rates for more than 40 years, the highest employment of any major European country and the lowest inflation in Europe. The cycle of boom and bust, which typified the Tory years, has finally been broken by a Labour Government. In this economy, business can invest with confidence and prosper.
I represent a constituency that depends heavily on manufacturing industry, so I recognise that growth in that sector is important if we are to maximise the successful expansion of our economy. Manufacturing suffered terribly under the Tories—nearly 3 million jobs were lost and output fell. For manufacturing to succeed, it must be at the forefront of innovation and change. We must be able to respond to changing demands and pressures, but we must also add value to our products if we are to remain at the front of the field.
I welcome the Government"s recognition of the country"s productivity gap. The problem, which has been with us for many years, results from a failure to invest in new technology and, importantly, to invest in the ongoing training of our work force. Recognising that we have a problem is one thing; doing something about it is another. We must be honest—we have a large productivity gap to bridge if we are to catch up and ultimately surpass our main international competitors.
Closing the gap requires the Government to establish the right environment for industry and business. Equally, industry and business must recognise that, if they are to succeed, they too must invest, not only in machinery and equipment, but in people—the employees. Industry"s approach to training and retraining its work force has been woeful. It has too often considered training to be an avoidable cost rather than a necessary investment.
94
When a business hopes to expand, rather than use its own employees whom it had the forethought to train, it looks to poach from others. In essence, the management think, "Why waste money and time training our own staff when we can try elsewhere? Someone else will train them for us." Unfortunately, too many of our companies have taken that approach. Some old nationalised industries provided many trained people, but now that those companies are in the private sector they train considerably fewer.
In our expanding economy, we are all too quick to talk about how skill shortage inhibits growth and adds to our costs, but industry does little to address the problem. When times are difficult, we tend to make matters worse rather than better, but I applaud the sharply contrasting attitude of Airbus at Broughton in my constituency. Following the events of 11 September, it faced a major downturn in the industry and reduced aircraft orders, but in partnership with its employees—the trade unions—it approached the problem with a common goal in mind, which was to minimise job losses and secure the long-term future of the business.
As part of that approach, one of the company"s first actions was to write to all its hundreds of apprentices, including those yet to start their training, and guarantee their continued employment with the company. It is refreshing to see a company, even in a downturn, look to the future—the long term—rather than just deal with short-term considerations. If we are to succeed in manufacturing, we must follow that approach, which is in sharp contrast to the traditional approach of British industry. According to that, a letter would also have been written to the apprentices to say that they no longer had a job or a future with the company, as they were a cost and their removal would improve the bottom line.
If we are to bridge the gap in productivity, we need to address our deficit in training and to encourage innovation. I welcome the CBI-TUC productivity working groups, which have identified key areas that need to be tackled. Their support for Investors in People is particularly welcome.
The extension of the research and development tax credit to large companies is an extremely positive development. At a qualifying rate of 125 per cent. of all R and D expenditure offset against corporation tax, that should further encourage companies to invest for the future.
However, I ask the Secretary of State to consider the Treasury"s definition of R and D expenditure to ensure that it conforms to the realities of industrial investment. We must ensure that the incentives we provide are to the maximum benefit of our industry, especially industries such as aerospace. That is an important issue, and we must get it right if we are to deliver the maximum benefits that we all hope for.
For smaller and medium-sized businesses, the Budget offers further positive incentives, and shows Labour"s continued commitment to that sector. The reduction in the starting rate of corporation tax from 10 per cent. to zero will benefit more than 150,000 companies. It is the lowest rate of such tax in Europe. In addition, the reduction in the small companies" rate will benefit hundreds of thousands more businesses.
I am pleased that the VAT arrangements for small business have been simplified, because we must create the right environment for those businesses to prosper.

95
The problems associated with VAT returns are regularly raised with me by businesses in my area. I ask Ministers to consider the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized companies in applying for grant aid. We must simplify measures in that area to speed up the processing of applications. Time is vital, and delays to applications can sometimes lead to the collapse of the business before the grant has come through.
The Budget is a Budget for all sectors of our economy. The most important factor for any business is stability. The Budget continues to deliver that aim.
8.22 pm
Michael Fabricant: In her peroration, the Secretary of State said that new Labour means that all people should be treated equally. In the Budget, it did just that with the national insurance increase of 1 per cent. for every person and every employer.
Mr. Bryant: Hear, hear.
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) does not have a background in industry. If he did, he would know that that increase will cost jobs. I shall come back to that later.
Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Michael Fabricant: I shall give way as I named the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bryant: I should point out that I was self-employed for the last three years of my employment.
Michael Fabricant: At one point in his life, the hon. Gentleman was a vicar. On his small income as a vicar, would he have wanted to pay a further 1 per cent? I suspect not. Can the Church of England afford to pay a further 1 per cent? I shall not dwell on that issue in too much detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) talked about the issues that were not addressed in the Chancellor"s speech, for example, the climate change levy. He said that nothing had been done to cut red tape, which costs firms between £1 2 billion and £5 billion each year. As a debutee—if not a debutante—of the use of the internet, I can certainly say that the suggestion made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will not save much time for business.
Some 617,000 hours are spent filling in forms for the Government. Last year, new legislation was introduced every 26 minutes of the working day. That legislation must be understood by people working in industry. While they are trying to understand it and fill in the forms resulting from it, they are not out there getting the jobs and the business that we need to keep small firms running well.
I was disappointed that there were no new initiatives or incentives to improve the rollout of broadband. Much has been said about broadband. I have said many times in the Chamber that, when the Government speak about broadband, other Governments would say that they are comparatively narrow band. If broadband is to be
96
extended into rural areas—I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda is keen for that to happen in his constituency, and he is right—there need to he tax incentives. The Budget included nothing on that.
Nothing was said either about profit-related pay. Some 40,000 people are employed by the John Lewis Partnership. Time and again, year after year, the Labour party promised that it would restore profit-related pay for non-share options. The people who work for the John Lewis Partnership, Unipart and Baxi Boilers are real stakeholders. They are part of co-operatives, and one would think that the Labour party would welcome that, but not so. The word "socialism" is not allowed to be used any more. Labour is renowned for not keeping its promises, and it has not.
To return to the subject of national insurance, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, the increase in national insurance will prove to be a double whammy—mark my words. From 2003, people will have to spend another 1 per cent. of their incomes on employees" national insurance, firms will have to pay a further I per cent. on employers" national insurance, and council tax will inevitably rise, because the vast expense incurred by councils is primarily on their wages bills. Even a small district council such as Lichfield will suffer a £78,000 rise in its wages bill, and the bill in Staffordshire will increase eightfold. That is a double whammy.
When council taxes go up, Labour Members with marginal seats—I am not referring to the hon. Member for Rhondda—will know why. It will be because of this Budget. In the first Budget of the last Parliament—I shall not dwell on this subject for long, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I will be out of order—there was a huge windfall tax on pensions. Pensions have failed to reach their expected! target and suffered badly.
The care home sector is in crisis. Something in the order of 50,000 care beds have closed in the past couple of years, and I think that that number will increase. The care home sector is very labour intensive, and so it should be. The increase in national insurance contributions will be an additional I per cent. cost.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Michael Fabricant: If the hon. Gentleman is quick and concise, I will give way.
Mr. Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason why many care homes have closed is that they cannot meet the new care standards? Is he suggesting that we should do away with those care standards, which are aimed at improving the quality of life of our elderly in those homes?
Michael Fabricant: It is far better to be in a care home than to be bed blocking. The Government set impractical guidelines without providing the financial resources to enable care homes to carry them out. That is why they are closing. The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Another sector that is closing is the automotive industry. We have already seen the closure of the Dagenham car plant and the closure of Vauxhall in Luton. In the west midlands, where Lichfield lies, we have not only factories but many automotive suppliers. Yes, even

97
in the leafy lanes of Lichfield, people work in the automotive industry and they are operating on a knife edge. That additional 1 per cent. national insurance contribution will be a major extra burden.
I am waiting for some smart Alec to say, "Ah, but corporation tax has been cut," but that will not assist small Firms in the automotive industry that are not making a profit. As has already been said, a firm cannot pay corporation tax unless it makes a profit in the first place. Nor will anyone making more than £1.5 million gain; they will suffer and there will be a major crisis.
Furthermore, no one has actually worked out the cost lo the national health service of the extra 1 per cent. on the employer"s contribution—or, indeed, the cost to schools. They operate their own budgets and they, too, will have to find that extra 1 per cent. from their own funding. I am sure that all hon. Members have visited schools in their constituency, so they will know that employment costs comprise about 85 per cent.—perhaps even 90 per cent.—of the running costs of schools. Those costs will rise by 1 per cent., with no additional money promised by the Government.
Of course, the Government justify all that extra taxation. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) rightly pointed out, it is not a stealth tax; it is so obviously an additional tax—we are so obviously going back to the tax and spend of old Labour days—that it is far from stealthy. The Government"s whole raison dôtre is to improve the national health service. Well, the acid test is: will Burntwood hospital remain open? Just before the last general election, the fact emerged—it certainly was not announced—that that hospital was to close. That was confirmed two days after the election. It is also likely that the maternity unit in Lichfield will close. There will be no more Dr. Johnsons and no more David Garricks born in Lichfield. Under a Labour Government nobody will be born in Lichfield because the maternity unit will close. We wait with great interest to see whether the NHS will reverse that decision, made under a Labour Government, but I know damn well that that will certainly not be the case.
Having had the third way, we have returned to the old ways of Labour and another tax and spend Labour Government. We have seen taxes go up and the standard of services fall. I would like to think that the NHS will improve as a consequence of the Budget, but watch this space! I do not think that it will. All that will happen is that although in the past the Government have managed to achieve reasonably low unemployment—that is also true in other parts of the EU—this Budget will mark the time when we see unemployment start to rise. The care homes sector, schools and the NHS will suffer as a consequence.
8.33 pm
Mr. Wayne David: This Budget, based on promoting the proper funding and modernisation of the national health service, has been warmly received in my constituency and, indeed, across the whole of south Wales. In my constituency, we very much hope that it will help to bring a little closer the new hospital that we have wanted for many years.
I am sure that Aneurin Bevan would have warmly welcomed the Budget. He would certainly have welcomed the fact that major improvements in the health service are being paid for by increases in national insurance contributions.
98
As has been said many times, the Budget is about creating a fairer and more just Britain. It is also about creating a more enterprising Britain. It is important to remember that those two aims are not contradictory but complementary. That is shown clearly when we consider unemployment—or worklessness—which is one of the main causes of poverty and social exclusion in our country. It still blights the lives of far too many individuals, but it is also a major impediment to Britain"s economic growth and continuing prosperity.
We all know that unemployment has dropped dramatically: it is at an all-time low and is also low compared with many countries in the European Union. Above all else, it is worth remembering that in the mid-1980s about 350,000 young people had been unemployed for more than one year. At present, only 4,700 young people are in that position. By any standard, that is a profound and dramatic change. However, there are pockets of unemployment that is far too high—unacceptably so.
For example, there are areas of acute deprivation throughout the whole of south Wales. In my constituency, unemployment is unacceptably high in communities such as Graig y Rhacca, the Aber valley and Bargoed. The problem is especially acute further up the valleys: in the heads of the valleys, unemployment is a major social problem. That is why I am extremely pleased that the Budget includes specific measures to promote enterprise and encourage employability.
There are proposals to extend the new deal 25-plus to jobseekers who have been unemployed for 18 months, on an "off and on" basis, and to introduce a gateway to work process for all jobseekers on new deal 25-plus in four areas—London, Manchester, Dundee and Swansea. There are other measures to help unemployed people but those two schemes will make a positive and significant difference.
In the extension of new deal 25-plus, about 5,000 unemployed people who have difficulty in holding down a job—whether seasonal or other work—will be given real life chances. There will be tailor-made job preparation courses for those on new deal 25-plus in the four cities that I mentioned. At first, they will only be pilot schemes but I believe that they will be successful and will be extended to other parts of the country.
Those two measures offer a new approach to dealing with the problem of long-term unemployment. They are about empowerment. They are about giving responsibility to individuals. They are about helping to take people off benefit and putting them into work.
The measures outlined in the Budget, as well as other measures pursued by the Government, are extremely positive. They will give people new hope for the future and ensure that they have a real stake in our developing society. For example, I especially welcome, as a complement to the Budget proposals, the recent announcement of the extension of employment zones and the creation of Jobcentre Plus, which will bring the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency together in a new comprehensive support system.
Those measures will make a significant contribution to the creation of a fairer society and a more enterprising country. The Budget takes us much, much closer to the creation of a society based on full employment. That has

99
historically been a goal for the Labour movement; it is now close to becoming a tangible reality. For that reason, above all else, we should warmly welcome the Budget.
8.38 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the points that have been made, particularly those which certain Labour Members raised in respect of specific health issues. Some folk criticise the fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland have received more funding per capita than England. From another point of view, some also point out that the standard of health care that we would like is not being delivered. I share in that criticism, but I do not agree with those who think that funding can be reduced. We cannot think simply in per capita terms, because we have to deal with isolated communities and a high percentage of particular types of illnesses. We might blame some people for inflicting certain illnesses on themselves, but the given environment can also be a factor, and in my view the funding for Scotland and Northern Ireland is necessary. I welcome the fact that the Budget statement made no mention of a reduction in such funding, and I look forward to its full implementation. We should remember the Treasury"s sleight of hand over the years; additionality comes into play, and it tries to get back such money in other ways.
I am equally aware, however, that fault can be found with the way that the money has been used. Amazingly, when we were crying out for front-line funding in Northern Ireland, the Executive discovered £10 million in the health budget, which they had reallocated to other areas of government. I appreciate that that was their decision, but why was it not spent earlier where it was needed—on front-line health care?
On disability, I share completely the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), and I underscore the view—recently expressed in various places—that there is a tendency to ignore those with learning difficulties and argue instead that the funds are needed for others in mainstream education. I should like to think that we as a Parliament and as a country will never forget the need to look after the underprivileged, who need extra help to enable them to take their place in our society.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) made an interesting point about apprentices and business. We are apt to blame one another, but it is interesting to note that trade unions had a part to play in the running down of the apprentice scheme. A tendency developed some years ago towards job protection, because it was felt that, if there were too many apprentices, sufficient jobs might not exist for other people. We must be careful to develop a long-term plan with some degree of understanding.
In that context, I turn to the failure of care homes to meet the required standards, to which reference has been made. I have visited small, family-type care homes in Northern Ireland which, because of the standard of care that they offered, went out of business when the new regulations came in. In private homes, fire precautions such as external escape routes are required. According to those standards, even in a home such as ours—in which we cared for a father, a mother and other family members—we should have had an external fire escape.
100
It is ridiculous to roll out a list of standards without considering the implications for those who prefer to be cared for in a smaller home as ordinary people. Larger homes may have many facilities, but they may not provide the care that some of these people really require.
I was interested to hear the Secretary of State for Health refer to less bureaucracy in the health service in defending the setting up of an independent audit body. However, as I listened I realised that, in fact, three bodies are being turned into one. In my years inside and outside Parliament, I have never discovered bureaucracy lessening; rather, it increases. Although I would like to believe those who say that a wonderful wand will be waved and bureaucracy will decrease, I do not. I discovered that, in one good hospital where a great deal of care is dispensed, it takes 24 days to get a message from one department to another. That is worse than Consignia and the Royal Mail. We must tighten up communication within the health service. Often, GPs do not get the speedy responses from hospitals that would enable them to treat their patients outwith. I would raise that issue especially when we talk of recruitment.
How long does it take to train a consultant? The Secretary of State for Health said that it takes at least 15 years, so the Government were right when they said that the Budget will not cure the health service, because we will not have all the staff that the health service requires during this Parliament or the next unless we import a high percentage of overseas health personnel into our country. Two things arise from that. First, there will he fewer job opportunities for those young people who want to serve in health care in future. Secondly, developing countries will be denuded of health personnel, even though regulations exist to stop people coming from the most under-developed countries. The policy will rob Peter to pay Paul, without serving our health service properly.
Finally, reference has been made to pensions. Age Concern has pleaded for simpler guidelines so that people can know what their pension entitlement might be. It has been suggested that businesses are doing the Government"s work, but they have been doing the Government"s work for decades. I want to tell the House about one of my constituents, Mr. McAuley, who has argued with the tax authorities and the Chancellor himself since the beginning of 2000, and he has found, as hon. Members do, that it takes a long time to get an answer. In his attempt to follow the Government"s guidelines to provide for his retirement, he put most of his money into long-term savings in his wife"s name because her income was too low to be taxable.
Mr. McAuley took the precaution of trying to get a fair return in the long term on his wife"s investments, but the bank and investment bodies have taken £500 to £800 a year more in direct taxation than she was required to pay. The law says that if someone"s income is £ 1 over the allowance, the whole sum is taxable. That tax can be reclaimed in due course, but I am not too sure how many hon. Members would like to pay out £500 or £800 before getting it back the next year. More importantly, the money was invested in high-yield stock and the income was reinvested in that stock, so that sum could not he reinvested ordinarily because it was already taken out of the investment. David McAuley is an individual, but perhaps his case represents others. Why should individuals suffer because it suits the tax man to allow business to do his work by taking money from people?
8.48 pm
David Wright: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). The key themes of this year"s Budget were rights and responsibilities. One of the alarming things that I have noted throughout this debate has been the attitude of Conservative Members, because the Budget is about rights and responsibilities not only for individuals and families but for businesses. We do not live in a world where each of those categories stands alone—we act together, as a society. Conservative Members think that business stands alone, outside society, and that it does not need to take any responsibility for what happens in society, but they are fundamentally wrong. That is the dividing line between us. As we focus on the Budget today, we have heard about the growing divide between the parties, and I shall return to that theme in a few moments.
It is difficult to make a speech after the Budget has already been debated for several hours. I shall focus on three key themes: first, the economic background against which the Budget is set; secondly, its impact on enterprise and investment in the UK economy; and, thirdly, the debate it prompts about the type of society in which we all want to live. Before tackling those themes, I shall comment on the way in which the Budget has altered the political debate in the UK, in my view, for the better.
The House will be reassured to learn that over the weekend I took a look at the Red Book—very exciting it is, too. I managed to get through the overview to concentrate, over my cocoa, on the introduction, which states:
"The Government"s objective is to build a stronger, more enterprising economy and a fairer society, extending economic opportunity and supporting those most in need to ensure that rising national prosperity is shared by all."
That is motherhood and apple pie, and until I heard this afternoon"s debate, I thought that we could all sign up to it, but we have heard little of inclusivity from the Conservatives today; all we have heard is a lot of complaint. Labour Members can sign up to the political philosophy set out in the Red Book introduction, and I welcome the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered last week.
Over the weekend, I was struck by the maturity of the debate on the Budget, and I pay a measure of tribute to the Opposition parties. Perhaps because of the Budget, our debates have reflected less of the hyperbole of British politics. We have exited the silly season, because this is the most serious Budget that has been presented to the country in 20 years of politics.
The nature of political debate in this country has changed radically in the past five years. For the first time, we are able to debate the structure of our public services and our collective responsibility to pay for them and modernise them. That was not the case 10 years ago. In the 1992 general election, Labour made a case for investing in public services, but the public rejected it. It has taken us 10 years to turn around the political environment to the point where the focus is now on how to Improve our public services. I welcome that change.
My first core theme is the background to the Budget. The Budget is built on a platform of economic stability—there is no denying that—and the programme targets child poverty and tackles much-needed investment in health.
102
All that was made possible by the approach we adopted during our first term in government. During that first term, we heard a lot of complaints from the Liberal Democrats about how we were not investing heavily; that complaint has been heard again this afternoon. However, we have laid the foundation for long-term investment and we will now build on that.
Last year, Britain"s was the fastest-growing economy in the G7, and growth forecasts remain extremely good. Long-term interest rates are low, inflation is low and unemployment is at its lowest since 1975. In Telford, unemployment has fallen by 21 per cent. since 1997, and youth unemployment has collapsed because of the new deal. The Opposition should take care not to talk Britain down. We have heard constant talking down of our country this afternoon, and we heard it from the shadow Chancellor at the last Conservative party conference. If they want investment in this country, if they want UK businesses to be successful, if they want more companies like the Japanese companies that come to invest in Telford because of the strength of our economy to come to this country, the Opposition should talk Britain up, not run it down at every opportunity.
This country"s borrowing and debt are under control, and I am proud of that. It is a reflection of the success of Labour"s first term. No wonder the Tories are envious of our economic record, given how appalling theirs was. When people look at the overall tax burden—the amount that they have to pay out—they do not forget the mortgage interest rates that they had to suffer under the Conservative Government. When people assemble their household budget and see how much they are paying in tax and how much they spend in other areas, most know that they are paying out less than they were under the Conservatives. That is due to the platform of stability that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has created.
My second core theme is the topic of today"s debate: enterprise and investment. Some of the proposals command consensus between the CBI and the TUC, for example, the research and development tax credit, which will give a real boost to the economy. I want to comment briefly on the Investors in People scheme. We have put in £30 million of additional funding to help small firms to attain Investors in People status. Over the past 12 months, I have visited several companies in my constituency that have secured that status, which is a way of ensuring that their organisation is dynamic and effective and makes the best use of its people-based assets. I welcome that expenditure.
In total, more than 1,500 businesses in Telford will benefit from measures contained in the Budget, especially the changes to VAT for small businesses.
I shall now join my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who is no longer in his seat, in ensuring that I do not get a Christmas card from Digby Jones of the CBI. I read his comments in yesterday"s edition of The Observer with interest. He said that by increasing national insurance contributions we are placing a tax on jobs. He should focus a little more on the impact of sickness at work. I asked the Library to dig me out a copy of the CBI"s report, "Pulling Together", its

103
2001 absence and labour turnover survey. The report reveals that in 2000 an average of 7.8 days per employee were lost through sickness. It states:
"The average direct cost of absence was estimated to be £434 per employee. This is broadly similar to last year"s figure of £438 per employee. If this figure were projected across the whole UK workforce, the cost to UK business would be £10.7 billion."
Yet we heard nothing from Conservative Members about the impact of sickness absence. They should bear that in mind.
Investment in the NHS will have a direct impact on the performance of the economy, because it keeps people at work and boosts productivity. Digby Jones suggested that the only economic advantage that we now possess over our European neighbours is a low tax regime for business. I do not believe that that is true. Our main advantage is the innovative and energetic nature of the British people, who work extremely hard. The healthier they are, the stronger and more productive our economy will be. They will perform best if they are well cared for by a high-quality national health service.
The investment in the health service will prompt demand for goods in the economy. It is not very trendy these days to talk about Keynesian economics, but for as long as I am here hon. Members will hear about it. Spending on public assets in the health service will lead to growing demand in the economy, and I welcome that.
My final point concerns the type of society in which we want to live. The Budget has the capacity to strengthen the institution that epitomises all that is best in our country and in delivery by a Labour Government: the national health service. That strengthening involves the investment outlined by the Chancellor coupled with reform. Opposition Members claim that health service reforms will not be effective, but the Government have proposed a platform of investment and reform that is spelt out in great detail. I welcome it and hope that it will be implemented as quickly as possible.
Effective change will take time, but it never took place under the Tories.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.
8.58 pm
John Mann: I start by declaring an interest. Having been an entrepreneur for the past 10 years, I am a major beneficiary of the Chancellor"s recent Budgets. My dividend payments and those of my co-directors—mine are of course declared in the Register of Members" Interests—will be higher this year, directly owing to the cuts in small business corporation tax. The potential that I am sitting on in shareholding terms is now at its height, as three years have elapsed since the Chancellor introduced the changes in capital gains tax. Although those changes have not received the amount of public debate that is necessary to encourage other entrepreneurs, they have been powerful in benefiting those who take a risk through entrepreneurship. Indeed, it is fair to say that although the entrepreneurs once sat on the Conservative Benches, they now sit on the Labour Benches. Perhaps Conservative Chancellors could once
104
claim to be the voice of business, but now the true voice of business, entrepreneurship and innovation is heard on the Labour Benches.
On Friday, I ran a well-attended, positive and successful Budget briefing, during which I asked a small business consisting of three employees how much the extra national insurance charges would cost compared with taking out BUPA"s medical insurance for each person. Such insurance does not cover accidents, emergencies or GPs, but it apparently has some benefit. Can hon. Members imagine the difference between paying national insurance charges and those of BUPA? One would gather from listening to Conservative Members and reading the newspapers that the employers" national insurance payments were significantly higher than BUPA contributions. That is not the case. It would cost a three-person small business in my constituency more than £800 a year more to take out BUPA insurance than to pay the increased national insurance contributions. That puts them in proper perspective.
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it would be helpful if you named the speaker for the benefit of the Annunciator operators. The hon. Gentleman"s name does not appear on the screen.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call John Mann.
John Mann: The phrase "five years in government" is often repeated. I therefore want to look back to 1984, when we had 2.5 million small businesses. Since the Government came to office, 1.3 million new businesses have been set up. That means that 55 per cent. more small businesses than existed in 1984 have been established since 1997. That is why employment and the economy are booming.
I asked the same business men in my constituency whether the cuts in corporation tax for small business more than outweighed the increase in national insurance. The profit account for this year alone shows that they do. There is a myth that small business has been continually hammered by red tape and taxes. That is not true. Hon. Members need not hear the message of small businesses in my constituency from me. Instead, let me quote Friday"s Worksop Guardian, in which Phil Sibson, chairman of the Worksop chamber of commerce, described the Budget as
"a fair budget for business".
When I set up my business, I had sky high bank charges and interest rates. That hits cash flow, and it is why the same number of business start-ups and successful businesses and the same rate of employment in small businesses did not occur under the previous Government. We now have a stable economy with low interest rates. That stability is the engine of growth.
Let me give an example of the impact on small businesses of the changes in capital gains tax. Let us consider a small, family business, owned by two people—perhaps a husband and wife who work together—that retains profits of £20,000, which is not a massive figure. On the basis of the formula 5.5 x the worth of a business, the changes that the Chancellor has introduced in the past three years mean that the business will make a net £27,000 in tax savings alone on a turnover of £20,000. The small business does not have to be older than three

105
years to get that maximum benefit. That is a pretty good bet for entrepreneurs who want to invest in their future. It is good for audits and returns and unprecedented in any tax regime in this country.
Small business tax has been cut to such a low amount. Do hon. Members know what it was in 1984? For small businesses the entrance level was 30 per cent. and for large businesses it was 45 per cent. That shows the difference between the first five years of Conservative Government and our first five years in power.
The briefing that I held on Friday was attended by the chairman of the primary care trust. "With all the additional money going into the health service," he urged me, "don"t let anyone get away with missing how much extra the NHS has been given over the last four years." That means that in my constituency alone, irrespective of the current Budget, there are costed plans for three new health centres. Bassetlaw has never before seen such a rate of progress in the NHS.
Last Tuesday, on the eve of the Budget, I went to a business forum held by the chamber of commerce at which the chief executive of the Bassetlaw NHS trust gave her vision of 2010. She described how the trust is knocking down the prefabs that have existed since the hospital was built to create land in anticipation of continued growth in the hospital"s acute services, which will be funded by the state. Those are no longer pipe dreams as they were on Tuesday evening; they are real plans that can be brought to fruition for the benefit of my constituents. Bassetlaw hospital is improving and growing. It is a popular hospital and people use it. The beauty of the additional money is that it can be used to increase the range of services, specialisms and treatments that are provided.
I shall tell the House what else the money can do. Conservative Members talk of waste in the NHS. I am sick to death of people knocking Britain and its public services. Let me tell the House about waste. Waste is the postcode lottery, which means that people cannot get into Bassetlaw hospital.
Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
John Mann: No, I will not.
Private sector solutions will never get rid of the postcode lottery. The solution is additional money for the NHS, and people in this country believe that. People who were brought up on the NHS are proud of it. They want treatment on the NHS; they want the drugs and the doctors to be the best available, and they want them paid for by the NHS.
Two or three days before my father died, the consultant asked him whether he wanted to go private—for the sake of a few flowers and a colour television. What my father said to him echoes the views of the overwhelming majority of my constituents. He said, "I was born and brought up on the NHS, I"ve lived on the NHS and I"ll die on the NHS." Nobody in my constituency should ever be given the option of going private to get better service than they would get by going public. We demand an NHS of which we can be proud. The Opposition offer a privatised alternative. We should let the people choose. The people will say, "It is our NHS. Invest in it. We applaud the decisions in this Budget."
9.8 pm
Mr. Chris Bryant: Today"s debate has been particularly revealing, not least because it has shown that the Conservative party is determined to prove to the nation that it has not changed and has learned nothing since the 1997 and 2001 elections. Above all, it has been particularly interesting to hear the manifest cynicism of Opposition Members. They reek of cynicism, if such a thing is possible, about the NHS. The words "Stalin" and "Stalinism" have been used time and again. It is as if the Opposition are determined to force their cynicism on the rest of the country.
It was particularly fascinating to hear the beginning of the debate, in which the Conservatives have been led by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). He first showed his cynicism in his maiden speech on 6 July 1992. Then, of course, he was trying to persuade his Government, who had engineered one of the biggest recessions that this country has ever seen, to adopt his solution for getting out of the recession and mounting an economic recovery—we have not had to debate that under the Labour Government, because we have managed to run the economy well. He argued:
"The other essential requirement for recovery is continued control of public expenditure."
A rather purple passage followed:
"It will require my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, like Ulysses, to lash himself to the mast"—
it gets a bit worrying here—
"and to fill his colleagues" ears with wax so that they do not succumb to the siren voices in favour of higher public spending."—[Official Report, 6 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 65.]
The Conservatives have not changed a bit—it was the same old song in 1992. It would have been much better if they had listened to the voices of the Labour party in 1992. If they had listened to the Labour party then on public spending—on the national health service in particular—we would have more doctors, more consultants, more nurses and a better health service across the whole of the United Kingdom.
It is good to see that the Conservatives have not changed. They are still absolutely obsessed with lower public spending, whatever the need in society. It is interesting that they are still barely concerned about cutting unemployment; to them, unemployment still seems to be a price worth paying, as was mentioned earlier. I asked the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford whether he was pleased that unemployment in his constituency had fallen by 55.5 per cent. since the 1997 general election. He seemed to cast that aside as a mere bagatelle, yet his party was not able to achieve that in government.
The second interesting thing about today"s debate is that, basically, everyone has agreed that Labour has managed the economy extremely well since 1997. We have achieved low inflation. Again, it is interesting that, in his maiden speech, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said that, in staging an economic recovery, getting inflation down was perhaps the most important thing that a Government could do. A Labour Government have been doing that—we have been keeping inflation low for longer than any Government have managed in the last 30 years.
Equally, unemployment in my constituency is now at 4.2 per cent. Many hon. Members find it difficult to believe that, in the history of the Rhondda, there has never

107
been a time since 1850 when the unemployment figures there have been within spitting distance of those across the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a significant achievement that we are creating new jobs not only in the south-east of England or the M4 corridor in south Wales but in valleys constituencies such as mine.
The third interesting thing that has been revealed today is that the vast majority of Members have agreed that this is an excellent Budget for businesses, especially those in disadvantaged areas. The cut in corporation tax will undoubtedly benefit businesses in disadvantaged areas disproportionately compared with the rest of the country. The cut in VAT administration will also be very welcome to many small businesses, especially sole traders, in my constituency. As someone who was a sole trader for several years, I know that that is a complicated matter, and I am delighted that it is changing.
The company law review that was announced by the Secretary of State earlier is very welcome, as many businesses would like to consider more efficient ways of structuring themselves. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) mentioned that nothing had been done for disadvantaged areas. The stamp duty changes, however, will have a dramatic effect on disadvantaged areas, and they are very welcome. Above all, if changes to the national health service produce a more efficient system in which employees are able to see a doctor at a time of their choosing and swiftly, we will have a more productive work force, which, in the end, will be in the interests of business.
It has also been interesting to see that the Tories still want to lecture the Labour party about how to run the economy and about what is good for business. The history behind that is fascinating. In 1992, when the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford first came to the House, there were 62,767 business failures in this country; between 1992 and 1997 under a Tory Government, there was an average of 46,796 business failures a year. Under a Labour Government, the figure has fallen dramatically to 40,949. The Government do not need any lectures on business-friendly policies; they are business-friendly, unlike the Conservatives.
The Conservatives have said ad infinitum that the increase in national insurance will be a tax on jobs. They wheeled out precisely the same argument against the national minimum wage, saying that 1 million jobs would suddenly disappear if we introduced it. However. 1.5 million extra jobs have been created in the economy.
Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bryant: I fear I have only a couple of minutes, so I shall not; I am sorry.
The Conservatives have argued that the national insurance employers" contribution will be far too expensive for employers. Let us face it; they have yet to come up with an alternative plan for funding any form of health service that will be cheaper for businesses. If every business had to start paying for a private health insurance scheme, the cost for industry would increase dramatically, not decrease. Even if we adopted the French model of social insurance, there would be at least a 1 or 2 per cent.
108
increase above the Budget proposal to provide the same service. I assure Opposition Members who want to look at the American model that many people in my constituency who can afford it have taken out private insurance. Funnily enough, the moment anything goes seriously wrong, private health companies suddenly say, "Oh no, you haven"t read clause 59, point 3, which means that if you are ever seriously ill we cannot fund your health care." The Chancellor is right; national insurance and taxation are the best way to pay for the NHS that we all want.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said that one of life"s lessons is that bureaucracy never decreases. In my experience, insurance premiums never decrease either. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabncant) will be glad to learn that, as I worked for the Church of England for several years, I was insured for many years by Ecclesiastical Insurance—"Insurance you can believe in" was its slogan—although I have now moved because it is far too expensive, to Sterling Insurance. I suspect that I may have to change again after a referendum next year.
I shall conclude with a hope for coming years. When Peter Walker was Secretary of State for Wales he said:
"The problem with the Welsh economy is that there is no word in Welsh for "entrepreneur"."—[Interruption.]
Hon. Members will catch up eventually. The Welsh economy is now vibrant. The other day, I met a constituent of mine, a young man called Jamie Rowland who set up his own company called the Bicycle Doctor with a £300 loan and a £500 grant. In his first year he expected a turnover of £15,000, but he achieved one of £100,000, which betokens something good for the economy of the Rhondda and shows that a strong entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Wales. I hope that we will make sure that "education, education, education" is still the future, because it is only with entrepreneurial spirit that we win.
9.18 pm
Mr. Kevan Jones: I welcome the Budget on behalf of my constituents in North Durham. We have heard much from Conservative Members about the damage that the Budget will cause to jobs. However, my constituents have not forgotten that they went through some terrible times in the 1980s at the hands of the Conservative party. A once great mining industry arid manufacturing industry was decimated. Throughout that period, we did not hear a peep from Conservative Members in defence of industry and communities throughout North Durham which faced wholesale destruction. At that time villages were left to die. People and communities were left with no hope for the future of their children and grandchildren.
Since 1997, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) reported is the case in his constituency, unemployment in North Durham has been at a record low. It has dropped by 44 per cent. The Conservatives tend to forget such facts. The reason why unemployment has fallen is that under a Labour Government we have had economic stability since 1997, with low interest rates and low inflation, which has allowed business in the north-east—or whatever business was left after the Conservatives had decimated it—to flourish.

109
I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), who mentioned that there are pockets of high unemployment in his constituency, which doggedly defy those trends. Similar areas exist in North Durham, and they will take time to put right. That is down to the "couldn"t care less" attitude that we saw in the 1980s, when those communities were left to the whims of the market.
One of the great success stories in North Durham has been the eradication of the scourge of youth unemployment, thanks to the new deal. That was paid for by a windfall tax, which it was said would decimate industry. It clearly did not.
I welcome the exemption from stamp duty for businesses in deprived areas. In areas such as Stanley in my constituency and South Stanley, that will be warmly welcomed. The abolition last year of stamp duty on housing led to more development. I know that it is hard for some Conservative Members to accept, but it is difficult to bring about development and business starts in those areas. Any help such as relief from stamp duty is valuable.
A further legacy of the industrial past of North Durham is a large elderly population scarred by industrial disease. The measures announced this week for the health service will be warmly welcomed. The Conservative strategy is to talk the health service down, reiterating the fact that it will not work. They want to break up the health service and replace it with a system under which people will have to pay. That is insulting to many of my constituents who work in the health service and are proud to do so.
The scandal in my constituency is not that, starting in September, we are getting a new hospital in Chester-le-Street, but the fact that the old one was still there in 2001—it was an old workhouse. When the nurses moved into temporary accommodation two months ago, they said that that was better than the building that they had left. The new hospital will ensure better health care for my constituents.
We have heard tonight from Conservative Members that they want investment in public services and health, but not one contribution to the debate set out how they would fund it. All they tell us is why it cannot be funded in the way that the Government have determined.
On Saturday, I did what I do every second Saturday: I went out on the doorsteps of North Durham, on this occasion asking people what they thought of the Budget. I can tell Opposition Members that the Budget is popular with the constituents of North Durham, whether in working-class areas of Pelton or some of the more middle class suburbs of Chester-le-Street. The Budget offers them the improvements in health care that they want. I can tell my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that the key point reiterated by my constituents is that if they are to pay more tax, they want delivery. We must ensure that that happens.
I also visited two schools on Friday. The head teachers at both the infant school and the junior school at Sacriston in my constituency welcomed the extra money that they were being given directly to improve facilities and to enable them to decide what they wanted for their schools. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) clearly did not understand that some of that money has already been put through and that extra money is being given directly to
110
schools with no strings attached so that head teachers can decide the priorities. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads up on what is happening in his constituency.
This Budget is good news for my constituency. It is part of the rebuilding of Britain. It is about rebuilding communities that were torn apart during the 1980s. It will go a long way to ensuring that the regeneration of and employment in North Durham continue.
9.25 pm
Mr. Damian Green: This debate has been consistently fascinating and sporadically enlightening. Before dealing with the many contributions made to it from Members on both sides of the House, as shadow Education Secretary I would like to deal with the topic of the Budget and education.
I should point out one salient fact about these four days of debate on the Budget. For the first time since this Government came to office in 1997, they have failed to put up an Education Minister to speak about the Budget, although I should say that I am always delighted to debate with and listen to the Paymaster General. Those of us who have fond memories of proceedings on the Finance Bill in the early days of the previous Parliament are always nostalgic for them. Nevertheless, the absence of a day"s or even half a day"s debate on education speaks volumes for the Government"s current commitment to it. As ever with this Government, one should look at the actions and not the rhetoric. Either the Government cannot be bothered to discuss the Budget"s effect on helping our schools and universities, or they feel a little ashamed of how education has fallen down their agenda.
It is important to be fair. Education was mentioned by the Chancellor in a couple of cursory lines in his Budget statement, so it is worth investigating in some detail what was announced. He announced, for example, a payment of £87 million to help schools deal with pupils" bad behaviour. I must point out that that is not new money. Some of it was first announced as part of the £150 million of the children"s fund allocation in the report by the Department for Education and Skills last March. Some of it was first announced as part of the £420 million allocated to the Connexions service—announced first on 23 October 2000 and then again on 20 March 2001. In addition, the truancy measures announced as part of the Budget have already been announced twice: on 26 March 2001 and 28 November 2001.
Let us look at the wider announcements in the Budget. The centrepiece of the Chancellor"s claim to be helping schools was simply that he was giving more money directly to head teachers so that they could spend it as they like. Again, that bears a degree of investigation. The press release put out by the Department—indeed, what the Chancellor told the House—suggested that a typical secondary school would see a rise in such funding from —98,500 to £114,000.
As one head teacher who e-mailed me about the announcement pointed out, half the money had already been announced in last year"s Budget—a standard Government trick, as he said. He calculated that the extra income for his school was therefore £5,881. That in itself would of course be welcome, but, unfortunately, he has also calculated that the extra employer national insurance contributions that he will be making will cost his school £13,221— considerably more than the school is gaining from the Chancellor"s apparent largesse.

111
Let us consider schools throughout the country. The best local government estimate is that the total cost to our schools of the national insurance increase for both employers and employees will be something like £165 million. That is rather more than the Government say they have given to schools. Faced with that embarrassment and the fact that people are looking behind the press releases to the detailed figures of the Budget, the Government did what they always do: they leaked an announcement of jam tomorrow. So, in two of this morning"s newspapers, we saw what will come up in the comprehensive spending review.
Even these figures seem slightly hazy and depend on which newspaper one reads. According to the Daily Express, there will be a £20 million bonanza in the comprehensive spending review for schools and universities. According to the Daily Mirror, the figure will be £3 billion. I know that figures are not the Government"s strong suit, but it is slightly ridiculous that they cannot get their leaks straight. They are not sure whether they are going to give £20 million or £3 billion in the comprehensive spending review.
Mr. Tom Levitt: We are all pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman can count to three. Does he not accept that the additional money that the Chancellor is giving to schools will go into their budgets this year and that the national insurance changes will affect them next year?
Mr. Green: And every year thereafter, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. Schools will be even worse off in the long term. I am happy to continue to talk about school spending if that is what the hon. Gentleman wants. In 1997, the Labour party promised that education would be its No. 1 priority. It said that it would
"increase the share of national income spent on education as we decrease it on the bills of economic and social failure".
However, spending on education as a proportion of gross domestic product in the 1997 to 2001 Parliament was 4.7 per cent. Under the last Conservative Government, between 1992 and 1997, the average figure was 5 per cent. So the Labour Government managed to reduce the proportion of GDP spent on education in their first term. If Labour Members find that difficult to believe, they do not have to take it from me. Professor Howard Glennerster of the London School of Economics said:
"Real-term spending per pupil … is only now"
in 2001
"beginning to creep back up to the level of five years ago. It was not until … 2000 that real per pupil spending rose above the 1995–96 level in England … By no stretch of the term "priority" could it be said to have applied to state education spending in the first four years of the Labour Government. Even in 2003 planned … spending will only be back to the levels of 1994."
So much for priorities.
It is worse than that, however. Even when the Chancellor announces in successive Budgets and comprehensive spending reviews that the Department for Education and Skills will receive more money, it does not necessarily spend it. The Department"s total underspend since the Government came to office totals more than £4 billion. In the past two years alone—2000 and 2001—
112
it underspent by £1.4 billion. From careful reading of the Budget figures, we have discovered that in the past year the Department managed to underspend by £800 million. The Department is so incompetent that even when the Chancellor pretends that he is being generous to it, it cannot spend the money on our schools and universities. It would have been helpful had an Education Minister spoken in the debate so that we could have probed why that is happening.
Mr. Bryant: What about responding to the debate?
Mr. Green: I was coming to that. The hon. Gentleman should calm down.
The Prime Minister said in Prime Minister"s questions that our education system is now among the top eight in the world precisely because of the investment, but that ranking is precisely not because of that investment, as we have seen. There has not been as much investment as the Department thought and when it does get it, it cannot spend it.
I was struck by a memorable remark from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), who said that the Prime Minister used to have a principle. I can tell him that the Prime Minister still does have a principle: when in doubt, dissimulate. His complacency about education is breathtaking. I assume that the figure that puts us among the top eight in the world comes from the programme for international student assessment—the Pisa study—which recently reported on comparative education systems across western Europe.
I must explain to the Prime Minister and any other Minister who might want to quote that study that it is based on 15-year-olds in 2000. Education Ministers and, indeed, some of the more honest Members on the Labour Back Benches made it clear that the Government spent their first term dealing with the primary education sector and are only now moving on to the secondary education sector. Those who were 15 in 2000 did not attend primary school at all after 1997, so this Government can have done nothing that had a beneficial effect on the education of the cohort included in the Pisa study. If that shows an improvement in good standards in the basics of education, it is a tribute to the Conservative education reforms of the 1980s. I hope that the Government will recognise that what they have said is complacent and misleading, and that the real state of British education is one where truancy is rising, where discipline is falling, where teachers are leaving as never before and where the rise in standards that we have seen over the past 10 years has stalled. The Government cannot afford to be complacent about education, and the Budget has done nothing to help Britain"s schools.
Nor has the Budget done anything to help Britain"s hard-pressed universities. The Association of University Teachers said that the Chancellor
"missed the opportunity"—
that is in the Budget—
"on Wednesday."
It says:
"Serious recruitment and retention problems, rock-bottom morale and decaying buildings and teaching facilities join the cuts in research funding and under-recruitment of students as serious problems facing higher education."

113
That seems enough to be going on with after five years of Labour Government. That is an indictment from one of the sectors that most welcomed the Labour Government in 1997; the university sector thought that its problems would be solved by the Labour Government, and it was cruelly misled.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Clearly the hon. Gentleman is attempting to talk down higher education. If no extra money is going into HE, who is paying for the brand-new campus at Consett for Derwentside college, which will be of great benefit to my constituency and to that of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury?
Mr. Green: Many of the people paying for it will be the students. As we learned this morning, they are now on average £10,000 in debt, despite the fact that before the 1997 election the Government promised that they had no intention to introduce tuition fees. That was the precursor of all the betrayals on tax that the Government introduced later, not least in the Budget. Things in education will not become better as long as the Government remain committed to their centralising agenda.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) was right when he said that far too many heads are frustrated by the micro-management of their schools by the Department for Education and Skills. As teachers, heads and governors know, they are not being allowed to get on with their respective jobs. They will continue to become disillusioned and leave. That poses the greatest threat to long-term standards of education in our schools.
The Government have always claimed that education and training should be one essential underpinning a successful economy. I think that we all agree with that. However, breathtakingly, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who opened the debate, seemed to suggest that the US model of a low-tax, low-regulation economy was another essential factor in a successful economy. The Opposition agree with that analysis, but the right hon. Lady does not seem to recognise that she was praising a Budget that moved decisively away from that model.
A number of Members talked about the general economic climate and specific sectors in the economy. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said that growth would be lower as a result of the Budget. I agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) made a similar point. All the economic numbers are put under threat by the Budget. It does nothing to help a savings ratio that is at its lowest for a decade. At a time when we are lagging behind many of our European partners it does nothing to encourage productivity. In particular, it does nothing effective for small business, as my hon. Friends the Members for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) made clear.
Not content with the prospect of making small business and especially the self-employed suffer, the Government do not recognise that these sectors are essential for future prosperity and future job creation. Yet the Government have chosen to increase taxation through national insurance contributions, which is especially harmful to those sectors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) was right to say that attacking business in this way—an attack launched by many Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright)—will not create a climate that will result in a reduction in poverty.
114
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) was right when he called the Chancellor of the Exchequer the tax-raiser general. We have heard various quotes of what Ministers said, including the Prime Minister, during television interviews in the run-up to the election. I think that, as ever with new Labour, the briefings are more accurate than the on-the-record quotes. The briefings to journalists from the Chancellor of the Exchequer seem to be especially relevant in this context. On the BBC 6 o"clock news on 22 May, Mark Mardell said:
"Those close to Gordon Brown"—
I think we know what that means—
"say it"s completely wrong to interpret this reluctance as meaning there is a plan to put up national insurance. They say that"s not his intention".
Even further up the BBC hierarchy, Andrew Marr said on the same programme:
"What he is saying is that the simple, straightforward Conservative allegation that he was going to lift the lid on national insurance and therefore produce an effective 50 per cent. rise in income tax is untrue."
No; it seems to be true. So the macro-economics of the Budget are damaging and not a little dishonest, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) was right to raise fears about future tax rises, including in council tax, occurring as a direct result of the tax rises in this Budget.
The other half of the Budget lies in its attention to the NHS, about which we have heard fascinating contributions from those on the Labour Benches. I must say that I have a sneaking fondness for the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), mostly because of his sheer shamelessness. He said that the NHS funding method was decided on the basis of the Wanless report. Decided after what debate and over what period? How arrogant of the Treasury to take this decision in private over a period of six hours. At least the hon. Gentleman could never be accused of naivety.
Sadly, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) simply told us that Wanless had spoken and that we should therefore accept what the oracle said and stop thinking for ourselves about health care. Since when did Labour Back Benchers have such blind faith in retired bankers? It is not beyond argument that a 1948 model of funding and delivery is the only possible one. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) was right: we must be open-minded as a nation about how best to promote better health care.
I am glad to observe that once again, my party is the truly internationalist party in this House. As many of my hon. Friends have made clear in this debate, we are attracted to a United States economic model without too many intrusive taxes and regulations, and we are also interested in many western European methods of delivering public services—especially health, education and transport. We are prepared to consider why these other European systems provide better health care, especially for the poor and disadvantaged. They may well also provide less bureaucracy, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) pointed out. The contrast is that we want to combine the best of the US economic model with the best of the western European public services model, while perversely, the Government want the worst of the high-tax, high-regulation aspects of

115
the western European economic model, combined with the top-down centralist model of the old eastern European delivery of public services.
It is a standard cliché for Ministers—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) repeated it—to say that they will take no lessons from us. They have now reached the stage when they will take no lessons from anyone on anything. Apparently, every other country is out of step on health care: left-wing and right-wing Governments from Scandinavia to Australia are all wrong. On the future of British business, every business organisation is wrong. The CBI has consistently been abused by Labour Back Benchers, and I have to tell them that its members will have been listening. Whether it is the Institute of Directors or the Federation of Small Businesses, we are told that none of them has any knowledge about business, and that only those on the Labour Back Benches know best how to run a business. They will not learn even from other parts of the UK. They have seen the levels of health spending in Scotland and Wales, which are higher than those in England but provide worse health care outcomes. In the case of Scotland, those outcomes are getting worse by the year.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Does my hon. Friend accept that Scotland indeed provides the model justifying our position, which is that money in itself will not deliver better outcomes? Last year in Scotland, fewer patients were treated by fewer nurses in fewer beds after waiting longer.
Mr. Green: My hon. Friend and his constituents will know that very well.
With every day that passes since the Budget announcement, it is clearer that the Government"s case is unravelling. This is not a Budget for enterprise, but an assault on the hard-working businesses that provide jobs and prosperity as well as the revenue for our public services. It is not a Budget for fairness; instead, it ties ever more people into a complex and confusing web of taxes and benefits while keeping a resolutely closed mind on reforming our great public services. This Budget is an historic failure. It deserves to be opposed and we will oppose it.
9.44 pm
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): This has been a long, interesting debate, with more than 30 Members on both sides of the House contributing. Before I reply, I want to say to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) that we will take no lectures from the Conservatives on under-investment in education, bearing in mind the neglect that we inherited from them in 1997. At that time, nearly half of all 11-year-olds were failing to learn the basics in maths and English. Primary school class sizes had risen every year from 1988 to 1997, and thousands of our children were being taught in crumbling classrooms.
The story so far, thanks to the extra investment in our education system by this Government, is that maths and English tests show an improvement of nearly 20 per cent. Ofsted reports rising standards, class sizes are down for five to seven-year-olds, 800 failing schools have been
116
turned round since 1997, and more than 12,500 new teachers have been appointed since January 1998. Spending on education is rising, thanks to a commitment from this Government.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Minister give way?
Dawn Primarolo: I will not give way at this time. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get into the substance of my speech, I will give way to him later if time permits.
Five years ago, the Government"s first Budget set out our objectives and reforms, and the disciplines to achieve economic stability, high employment and sustainable prosperity. Britain has enjoyed the lowest inflation and interest rates for 40 years, and, for the first time in half a century, unemployment in Britain is lower than in America, Japan and Europe. In the year just ended. Britain had the highest growth of any of our major competitors. As many of my hon. Friends mentioned today, employment has increased by 1.3 million since 1997.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. David), for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), and for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) pointed out, every reform undertaken by this Government has been opposed by the Conservatives, be it the introduction of the national minimum wage, the windfall levy, the corporation tax reforms or even the objective of reaching full employment.
At the same time as we were achieving economic stability, net debt has been reduced. In the year to last April, the Government repaid £37 billion of debt. In 1996–97, debt represented 44 per cent. of Britain"s national income. Three years ago, we brought that down to 36 per cent., and last year to 31 per cent. In the United States, it is 41 per cent. of national income, in the euro area as a whole, it is 53 per cent., and in Japan, 59 per cent.
Debt interest payments were running at £29 billion a year when we came to power, and more money was being spent on debt interest than was being invested in all our schools. Yet the Conservatives have the cheek to tell us that we are not doing enough for education. Debt interest payments fell to £26 billion in 2000 and fell again in 2001 to £22 billion. We expect the figure to fall again this year to £21 billion, which is 2 per cent. of our national income. Debt interest payments consume a lower proportion of our national income than at any time since the first world war.
This Government are committed to building a fairer, more inclusive society in which everyone can contribute to and benefit from rising prosperity. That is more than the previous Conservative Administration ever managed to do in their 18 years. It means delivering excellent public services, supporting families and helping parents to balance work with their child care responsibilities. It also means ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to fulfil their potential in the workplace and in business, providing security for pensioners and ensuring that opportunity for all sits at the heart of our welfare reform agenda.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) pointed out, supported by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), investment in measures to assist those with learning difficulties—

117
my hon. Friend called them the "forgotten army" in our communities—such as the new deal for disabled people and the supported placement scheme is a project that we must continue to press forward.
The Budget is built on the foundations of economic stability created over the past five years, which made Britain last year the fastest growing G7 economy. It takes action, doing what needs to be done to build a strong, fairer and more enterprising Britain.
Last week, the Chancellor said that the Budget is
"to make our NHS the best insurance policy in the world … Fairness and enterprise together."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 592.]
It demonstrates the need to raise revenues for essential public services, which is supported by about 76 per cent. of people in this country. Even 54 per cent. of Conservative voters support that principle. However, raising that investment in public services will not deflect the Government from the path that we laid out in previous years—encouraging enterprise, modernising the tax system and creating opportunities for business.
Through the changes to the national insurance system, we seek to achieve a balance that is as fair and equitable as possible. Our approach recognises the interconnected interests of business, the individual and the community, which is vital to making the proper investment in our health service. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford vividly described the importance of investment in partnership, recognising as the CBI does that absence due to sickness costs business a phenomenal amount—some £23 billion a year. Tackling that issue is crucial if we are to make progress.
We have pressed on with modernising business tax to provide a fairer and better balanced system with fewer distortions and a structure that supports our productivity and enterprise agenda. We have introduced a new research and development tax credit to help innovation and to narrow the productivity gap with our major competitors. We have again cut corporation tax for small enterprises.
Mr. Prisk: Will the Minister give way?
Dawn Primarolo: May I make progress? I shall come to the hon. Gentleman"s points in a moment.
We have made it clear that we shall continue our practice of consultation, even on issues where some decisions in principle have been taken in advance of Budget announcements. On major changes such as stamp duty reform, the treatment of overseas companies operating here through branches, face value vouchers and abolishing North sea royalty payments, we have a particular interest in ensuring that we consult with the industry.
Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?
Dawn Primarolo: I shall refer to the North sea in a moment.
We have also announced our intention to consult on the next stage of corporate tax reform following on from the changes introduced in the Budget on the sale of substantial shareholdings in respect of corporation tax and establishing a new coherent approach to taxing international property rights.
118
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) referred to the research and development tax credit and, in particular, asked whether the definition is too narrow. The definition set out in the Department of Trade and Industry guidelines is based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development definition of research and development. The same definition underpins the UK accounting definition of research and development and the tax definition used in most other countries with research and development tax incentives. The Government are working with the CBI to clarify the definition, including relevant case studies, to ensure certainty for business.
North sea taxation was raised by a number of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. Changes to it will ensure that companies pay a fair share of tax on their profits from exploiting a national resource. For example, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that that is a textbook case of tax on economic rent. In 2001, the UK continental shelf companies made a pre-tax rate of return of 34.3 per cent. compared with 11.2 per cent. for other non-fiscal companies.
Hon. Members are concerned to ensure that ours is not the highest taxing regime in the world. The UK regime, even with the changes that have been made today, is far fairer and far better than regimes of other countries, such as Norway at 88 per cent., the US Gulf of Mexico at 66 per cent., Canada at 70 per cent., Australia at 75 per cent., Angola at 80 per cent. and Brazil at 65 per cent. That shows that the UK has a low tax regime.
Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Lady does not seem to understand that what matters is the total costs across the operation. The North sea is an extremely expensive place to operate in physically, and those costs are the reason why the tax regime has been lower in the past to encourage investment. The Chancellor has recognised that in the past, but has now changed his mind. No classic textbook on taxing business says that the tax regime should be changed at midnight so that companies have no chance to plan for it, no chance to take it into account and no chance to incorporate it in their business plans.
Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the announcements on allowances and future investment and the reform of royalties are part of a fair and balanced package for the North sea.
Many issues have been raised in the debate, but I want to deal specifically with the points that several hon. Members made about small businesses. They continued to confuse the number of statutory instruments and the number of regulations on businesses. They quote figures that are incorrect. More than 95 per cent. of statutory instruments have no impact on business. Many have only a local or temporary effect.
Opposition Members" obsession with regulation and statutory instruments leads them to confuse the debate. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) made a number of points about small businesses, the self-employed and unincorporated companies. He also dealt with national insurance, in particular class 2 and class 4 contributions. Class 2 for those earning below £4,025 a year is zero, as is class 4. For all other levels in

119
class 2, it is £2 a week. Only for those in class 4 whose earnings are between the lower and the upper profits limit does the charge rise to 7 per cent.
The comments about burdens on business, especially on the self-employed, from national insurance contributions failed to recognise the additional benefits that those in the self-employed sector get from the national insurance fund.
Mr. Prisk: As the hon. Lady will realise from having attended the debate, my point was that the Budget specifically excluded the self-employed from tax cuts, yet it happily included them in the tax rises under national insurance. I was challenging that inequality.
Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman should look again at the Budget and at the work that the Government have already done to see the benefits for unincorporated business, including the 40 per cent. first-year allowances, the 100 per cent. capital allowances, the over-indexation of the lop starting rate, the cut in the basic rate of tax and the changes to the quarterly payments for PAYE.
The hon. Gentleman should also consider what small businesses themselves are saying. Chris Thompson, the chief executive of Express Engineering Group, who employs 350 people in the north-east, said:
"It"s one of the best attempts I"ve seen to promote an enterprise culture. The reduction in capital gains tax on selling stakes certainly makes it worth starting a business."
He went on to say that the benefits that his company will receive from the training and R and D tax credits vastly outweigh any other concerns.
The Budget has been about enterprise, fairness and investing in the national health service. Economic stability is the foundation for achieving a fairer and more inclusive society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) said, the health of the nation goes hand in hand with the wealth of the nation. This is a Budget to
120
make our NHS the best insurance policy in the world, with fairness and enterprise together, and I commend it to the House.
Debate adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That—

(1) the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 8th May at half-past Ten o"clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee, and

(2) in respect of that sitting Standing Order No. 99 (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) shall have effect with the substitution in paragraph (2)(b) of the word "seven" for the word "ten"—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Ordered,

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY
  That the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 641), dated 6th March 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on llth March, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

  AGGREGATES LEVY
  That the Aggregates Levy (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 4027), dated 19th December 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  That the Aggregates Levy (General) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002. No. 761), dated 21st March 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Elections (Sierra Leone)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
10 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: I appreciate the opportunity to initiate the debate, but before I speak about the elections in Sierra Leone I must mention the recent allegations that aid workers sexually abused children in refugee camps in that country. I hope that the Government are taking that issue up with aid agencies and the Government of Sierra Leone.
The subject for the debate is especially relevant as campaigning is well under way and the election will be held in three weeks, on 14 May. It is critical for the peace process in Sierra Leone that the elections are successful. It is also important for Africa, where democracy is still such a frail plant, that they are peaceful and that the outcome is accepted—whether President Kabbah and the Sierra Leone People"s party are returned to power or a new President and a new Government are in Parliament.
Without going into all the details, it will be salutary for the House to remember that until January a civil war had been going on in Sierra Leone for 11 years. During that period, several attempts were made to re-establish peace and the democratic process, but unfortunately—to put it mildly—they all failed. We must hope that Sierra Leone is on the verge of a miraculous recovery after those years of untrammelled violence, during which unspeakable atrocities were committed. Indeed, we can only marvel at the recovery that has been made, and should regard with wonder the way in which—during the past few months especially—the political leadership across the party spectrum and the people at large have tried, with much success, to put the violence and bloodshed of the past decade behind them and have focused on reviving democracy, breathing new life into the meaning of peace.
That is a huge change for the better, but it did not happen on its own. The involvement of the United Nations through the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone—UNAMSIL—has been critical in brokering and maintaining peace; while the British armed interventions at vital points, especially between May and September 2000, were generally regarded in Sierra Leone as essential for the success of UNAMSIL. Indeed, many people would say that the activities of British troops in Sierra Leone between May and September 2000 saved the Lome peace agreement of July 1999 from being merely fine words and enabled the political leadership and the people of Sierra Leone to focus positively on restoring democracy. So far, they have responded magnificently.
British and UNAMSIL military efforts have been crucial, and well publicised, in bringing about the current situation in Sierra Leone, where the politicians and the people are vigorously participating in the presidential and parliamentary elections. What is not so readily recognised, nor so well publicised, is the work of independent organisations, such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the National Democratic Institute, the International Foundation for Election Systems, the British Council, the Institute for Peace and Development and the National Commission for Democracy and Human Rights in Sierra Leone, and official bodies such as the British high commission, the Department for International
122
Development and the UN Development Programme. Between them, a huge effort has been made and is still being made—even during the campaign—to strengthen democracy, the democratic process and the political parties in Sierra Leone.
The WFD has been in the vanguard of that work. Liz Marsh, its programme director for Africa, has family links with Sierra Leone and has been tireless in promoting work with the political parties in order to restore multi-party democracy. In Sierra Leone itself, the WFD programme manager, Catherine Worthing, continues to work flat out to ensure that training is provided for polling agents in at least nine centres in all the provinces, including Freetown. Tony Expedzor, from the Ghanaian national electoral commission, is providing hands-on training and doing a great job. In addition to that training, five weeks ago—after much preparation and work with the leadership of most of the 23 registered parties, the British high commission, the national electoral commission, non- governmental organisations involved in the electoral process, the Speaker and Clerk of Parliament, and resident multilateral and bilateral development assistance agencies involved in good governance—a round-table conference was held in Freetown to focus on strengthening the democratic process in the run-up to the elections of 14 May and beyond.
Dr. Mike Warner, a research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute and director of Stakeholder Negotiation Services International, led on the organisation and provision of strategic guidance for the round table. He was ably assisted by Kwabena Mensah, a democratisation consultant from Ghana. I participated with Kwabena in a presentation on the practicalities of parties—government and opposition—working in a democracy. During that day, I also acted as a facilitator to the group that considered the priorities and purpose of national democracies. I spoke briefly at the final session, at which the participants-19 representatives from 12 of the 23 registered parties, including all those with parliamentary representatives—drew up a memorandum of understanding. Among many other points, the participants agreed
"that our vision as political parties is a democratic system where there will be mutual respect and trust, leading to electoral processes the outcome of which will be accepted."
We must all hope, for the sake of the people of Sierra Leone, that the agreement will hold once the outcome is known, on 14 May, of the democratic processes taking place in Sierra Leone. During my five-day visit, I had meetings with the high commissioner and staff of the British high commission, officials from the Department for International Development, and Walter Nicol, chairman of the National Electoral Commission, and his four regional directors. I also spoke to 56 trainee polling agents; members of the public; Joe Hall, director of the National Democracy Institute; Honorie Muyoyeta, lead trainer of the NDI election support programme; and two aspiring women candidates, Salamatu V. Conteh, a teacher who hopes to represent the United National People"s party in Parliament, and Amelia Gebanawe, who hopes to be elected as a paramount chief.
Finally, as an MP "addict" I held a surgery, to which I invited round-table participants who wanted to express their feelings about what was happening. Five senior figures from the parties involved came to see me, including Dr. John Karefa-Smart, the then leader of the UNPP, who is now its presidential candidate, a

123
John Benjamin, interim chairman of the National Unity party. He is not participating in the elections—that has nothing to do with anything that I said to him—because he failed to become the presidential candidate for the Grand Alliance party and has refused the vice-presidential candidacy. The other senior figures were Pallo Bangura, secretary general of the Revolutionary United Front party—the political wing of the rebel RUF—and its presidential candidate; Cornelius Deveaux, leader of the Young People"s party; and Osman Yansaneh, assistant secretary general of the All People"s Congress.
One point that emerged from those meetings was the general concern that the NEC was favouring the Government, and in particular that election day could prove chaotic. Many registered voters in urban areas were not sure at which polling station they would be voting, as the station in question would not necessarily be the one at which they registered their right to vote. No polling cards were sent to voters in Sierra Leone. To reduce the queues on polling day, about 500 voters have been allocated to each polling station—a good idea, but many people do not know exactly where they are supposed to vote. As a result, there may be great dissatisfaction and dissent, and the possibility of serious unrest is obvious.
The following day, I spoke to Walter Nicol, the chairman of the NEC, and raised that issue with him. I suggested that, at the beginning of the campaign, the NEC post outside each polling station a list of the voters eligible to vote there, and he promised to consider that idea. When I phoned him this morning, he said that the NEC had decided that, although it could not do as I suggested everywhere, it would do so in the capital, Freetown, and other major towns, where voters could have real difficulty finding their voting stations.
Given the bloody and brutal decade of military conflict, I was encouraged by the positive efforts made by the political parties to ensure that the elections of 14 May will represent a fresh start for sustainable, peaceful democratic politics in Sierra Leone. However, that process is not without real difficulties and, in truth, challenges, given the catalogue of failures since 1991. The criticisms and fears of the opposition parties could be subdued if election observers were in place. There are now only a few small teams of observers across the country, with additional observers arriving during the election campaign.
Anything that can be reported in the Sierra Leone media to show that there is a keen interest in and observation of the elections, especially in the United Kingdom, will help to create confidence in the electoral process and strengthen the acceptance of its outcome. When that high hurdle has been successfully negotiated, it will be crucial to ensure that the issues raised in the memorandum of understanding are followed up.
I want briefly to consider two key issues. First, there should be an overhaul of the Sierra Leone Parliament"s administration and working processes. Secondly, preparations to establish democracy at district level should get under way pretty quickly, and I understand that a draft Bill has now been proposed on that subject. That work will need to be done by all-party committees in Parliament, calling on outside expert advice. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the NDI and similar organisations are well placed to provide such advice and guidance. Their work so far has been excellent
124
and has made a vital contribution to the progress made in creating confidence in the real possibility of a peaceful transition to democratic politics after a decade of military conflict.
I hope that our Government will be fully involved in those processes. In fact, to some extent they already are, but it will be encouraging to hear that officially from the Minister speaking from the Dispatch Box tonight. I want the Government to act before the elections to ensure that there are sufficient observers to give the opposition parties in particular confidence in the electoral process and, after the election, to sustain the new democratic start for Sierra Leone by maintaining the momentum for peace and economic recovery through financial, technical and expert support.
I close with the words of early-day motion 1098, which I tabled and which has so far attracted 218 signatures:
"this House … looks forward to a new era in Sierra Leone politics where the ballot box and peaceful debate in Parliament and outside will replace permanently the horrors of internal military conflict".
I certainly hope that that is the future for Sierra Leone.
10.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for making the elections in Sierra Leone the subject of this debate, for drawing attention to the recent positive developments there and especially for naming all the groups that, in his view, have contributed so much to those positive developments. That Sierra Leone is holding parliamentary and presidential elections on 14 May is a remarkable achievement. It clearly illustrates the real progress that Sierra Leone, with the help of the United Kingdom, the United Nations and the wider international community, is making towards a lasting peace.
Let me speak first about the peace process. A year ago, more than 50 per cent. of Sierra Leone was under the control of the brutal RUF rebels. Since then more than 50,000 combatants have disarmed and the UN peacekeeping force, UNAMSIL, has deployed throughout the country. The Government of Sierra Leone have restored their authority over the whole country and are now gradually extending basic Government services into areas that have not been under Government control for the best part of a decade. All parts of the country are now accessible.
On 18 January, President Kabbah declared that disarmament was complete and the war over, and on 1 March, he lifted the state of emergency. Thanks to the training provided by, among others, our own armed forces, Sierra Leone can now have more confidence in its rehabilitated armed forces, which are now patrolling the borders effectively. Like my hon. Friend, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the critical contribution made by our armed forces since their deployment to Freetown in May 2000, and by the UN, to the restoration of peace.
Our strategy in Sierra Leone is working, but the peace is fragile, and much remains to be done to consolidate it. In the short term, there is an urgent requirement to establish reintegration programmes across the country to help, through training and employment, former combatants to resettle in their home communities. We are

125
extending a reintegration programme successfully piloted in north-western Sierra Leone to other areas, and we hope that other donors will follow our lead.
The illegal mining of diamonds by the RUF fuelled the conflict. The Government of Sierra Leone need to set out and implement a comprehensive strategy to manage and secure the diamond fields, so that the diamonds can be exploited to the benefit of all Sierra Leoneans and are put beyond the reach of rebel groups. Consultants funded by us have finished a study setting out the options for the Government. We are also funding a technical adviser who will work in the President"s office.
As my hon. Friend rightly says, in the long term Sierra Leone faces the massive task of rebuilding its shattered infrastructure and society. The priority for the new Government after the elections will be to improve standards of governance and to root out the endemic corruption that was one of the root causes of the conflict. Our commitment to Sierra Leone is long term, but we cannot do everything alone. I urge all donors to seize the opportunity for lasting peace in Sierra Leone and to mobilise the funding and technical assistance required for economic, social and political development.
Having described the background, I now focus on the main subject of tonight"s debate: the elections, which should mark a further significant step towards peace and the restoration of normal, peaceful politics. My hon. Friend is right to raise this important issue. Preparations for the elections have taken place in difficult and unusual circumstances. Voter registration commenced barely one month after the ending of disarmament, and a new electoral system—the district block system—has been introduced. Wherever possible, arrangements have been made for refugees and the internally displaced, who are returning to their home communities, to vote.
While I am on the subject of refugees, let me say a little about the issue that my hon. Friend mentioned at the start of his speech—the serious allegations made in the joint report by Save the Children Fund and the UN about the sexual abuse of refugees and the internally displaced by aid workers and peacekeepers. We welcome the UN"s investigation into these allegations and urge the UN to ensure that internationally accepted standards concerning the treatment of refugees are met, and that appropriate controls are put in place to pre vent the recurrence of such unacceptable abuse.
Like most of the institutions in Sierra Leone, the National Electoral Commission has been degraded by years of civil war and it lacks capacity, but it is the NEC, not the international community nor the UN, that has taken on the responsibility tor running the elections. I stress that the elections are being run by Sierra Leoneans for all Sierra Leoneans.
We have long recognised that elections would be an important element of any peace. Through the electoral consultancy International Foundation for Electoral Systems, we have provided more than £3 million of technical and material assistance to the NEC since 2000. The US Government have also provided funding to IFES, and the European Commission has funded the printing and supply of ballot papers.
Security is of course a vital issue in the elections. UNAMSIL is playing a key role by providing a secure environment for the elections, as well as logistical assistance to the national electoral commission, including
126
the security and transportation of election materials. UNAMSIL will also provide advice and support to the Sierra Leone police, who will be responsible for security at polling stations. I commend the UN for that constructive contribution to the elections.
Voter registration took place over three weeks in February and March, and it was extended by one week as a result of organisational and logistical problems. Some 2.3 million people registered to vote. That compares favourably with only 1.6 million registered voters in 1996. The registration process was acknowledged to be fairer and wider than in 1996, and there were no violent incidents. IFES is working with the national electoral commission to ensure that the problems encountered during the registration process do not recur during polling.
Campaigning has now started. Ten parties will contest the elections. There are nine candidates for the presidential elections and 1,349 candidates for the parliamentary elections. The Revolutionary United Front has transformed itself into a political party—the RUFP—and it is the fourth largest party in terms of its number of candidates. We urge the RUFP to continue to turn its back on violence and embrace normal politics.
Participatory politics suffered during the conflict and the parties, especially those in opposition, lack resources, capacity, experience and organisational skills. We have focused on the need to develop the capacity of parties as a priority, not only before the elections, but over the long term. We have provided some £150,000 to fund the Westminster Foundation for Democracy"s work with the parties.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend"s positive feedback about the Westminster Foundation for Democracy"s work in Sierra Leone. We have come to expect high standards of that organisation, but this is an important and large programme that is laying the foundations for a longer-term programme in Sierra Leone. I was particularly pleased to learn that its events are well attended and appreciated by the Opposition parties. I commend the Westminster Foundation for Democracy for its valuable work in Sierra Leone.
I thank my hon. Friend for taking the trouble to visit Sierra Leone to participate in the Westminster Foundation for Democracy"s round table on promoting democracy. I am aware from our contacts in Freetown that the round table, which was attended by 12 parties, was a success and that Opposition leaders valued my hon. Friend"s contributions in both formal and informal meetings. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall write to him about the detailed point that he raised in relation to his informal surgery concerning Opposition parties" fears about polling stations.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the presence of international observers in addition to local monitors will further help to give the parties confidence in the process and to ensure that the elections are credible. The European Union is fielding an observer mission of 18 long-term and 56 short-term observers. I can confirm that we are contributing one long-term observer and four short-term observers, including the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). The majority of long-term observers are already in Sierra Leone to observe the electoral preparations and campaigning. I understand that the Commonwealth, the Economic Community of West African States, the African Union and Nigeria are also planning to send observer missions.

127
Free access to the media is another important factor in the election campaign. In a country where communication is very difficult, radio is the only medium with national coverage. We have provided more than £20,000 of funding to the Thomson Foundation, which is working with the Sierra Leone Broadcasting Service on the reporting of election campaigns. We urge the broadcast and print media in Sierra Leone to play their full part in the elections and ensure that all parties have equitable access to the media. I commend UNAMSIL and several commercial radio stations for giving the political parties free air time on their radio stations.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, we also need to look beyond the elections. Holding credible elections is only one stage in a long process of political development in Sierra Leone. The Government of Sierra Leone, with the support of the United Kingdom and others, must promote improved governance and accountability. I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom is fully involved—probably more involved than any other country, as he must know from his visit. We intend to remain so.
The Government of Sierra Leone need to build the capacity of Parliament, ensure that it has adequate resources and develops a structure of committees so that it can scrutinise more effectively the activities of Government and call the new Government to account. We
128
hope that, after the elections, the new Members of Parliament will raise the profile and reputation of the Parliament through constructive debate.
For the moment, we are looking forward to peaceful and fair elections. I am encouraged that the Opposition parties that attended the Westminster Foundation signed a memorandum of understanding calling for a
"democratic system where there will be mutual respect and trust, leading to political processes, the outcome of which will be accepted".
I call upon all those participating in the elections, whether candidates or voters, to ensure that the elections are conducted in an atmosphere of peace.
We hope that all Sierra Leoneans will benefit from the peace and that, for the first time in a decade, they can exercise their democratic right to vote in peace. In his speech at the George Bush Senior Presidential Library in Texas on 8 April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke about his visit to Sierra Leone on 9 February. He said:
"Never forget: the people are the true victims of conflict. I"ll always remember driving through the villages near Freetown … seeing the people rejoicing—many of them amputees through the brutality from which they had been liberated—and their joy at being free to debate, argue and vote as they wished."
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o"clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the functions of her Department that have been(a) market tested and (b) outsourced in each of the last five years, specifying the (i) money saving and (ii) percentage saving in each case. [42987]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: In relation to the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, the answer is as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The CPS has not conducted any formal market testing activity in the last five years.

  The CPS has, however, let a major contract for the provision of IT services under private finance initiative (PFI) principles in December 2001. The service provision is due to commence in April 2002.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  In March 1999 a new cleaning contract was awarded by the Treasury Solicitor's Department following a competitive tendering exercise. Another contract was let, after a further tendering exercise, for the Department's security guarding function in December 1999, as a consequence of the withdrawal of the previous (public sector) supplier. There were no cost savings in either case.

  Serious Fraud Office

  In the last five years the Serious Fraud Office has market tested and outsourced IT, telecoms and off-site storage services. The remaining information requested could be provided only by the individual consideration of all relevant finance files for the last five years. This would involve disproportionate cost.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what recent assessment she has made of whether the PSA target to reduce unit costs per case in real terms by 1.3 per cent. by March will be met. [47815]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Law Officers' 2002 departmental report.

  Property Protection
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what new measures her Department took in 2001–02 to protect its property from theft or damage. [47322]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: It is not the practice of the Law Officers to make public details of security arrangements for the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many times Ministers in her Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47111]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Since 1999 this Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. The 1999 list contained information on all such visits undertaken from 2 May 1997 to 30 April 1999. Details for travel undertaken in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many times special advisers have accompanied Ministers on overseas visits in each of the last five years; which countries were visited; and what the total cost of each individual visit was. [47150]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 9 April 2002]: Neither the Attorney-General nor I employ special advisers.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Solicitor-General how much was spent by departmental special advisers on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for entertainment purposes in each of the last five years. [46832]

  The Solicitor-General
  Nothing has been spent as neither the Attorney-General nor I employ special advisers.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the target has been in each of the last five years for efficiency savings as a percentage of total running costs for each of the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible; and if the target was met. [49647]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General is not responsible for any non-departmental bodies.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many people employed by the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible under the New Deal for Young People in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseekers' allowance or other benefits. [49612]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General is not responsible for any non-departmental bodies.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Solicitor-General on what time scale she expects to reach conclusions in relation to the inquiry by Wiltshire Police into experiments at Porton Down, with special reference to(a) the file submitted to the Attorney-General in January 2001 concerning L.A.C. Ronald Maddison and (b) the police reports referring to experiments on the common cold. [47732]

  The Solicitor-General
  Wiltshire police commenced this inquiry in 1999.

  As regards a possible prosecution, files of evidence for consideration by the CPS have been sent in stages since September 2001. A large quantity of material has been submitted and is in the process of being reviewed.

  Further papers are expected from the police within the next few weeks. When all the evidence has been received, the CPS will conclude the review process promptly. There are no specific police reports referring to experiments on the common cold. These assertions are contained in numerous statements throughout the many evidential files and are being fully considered in conjunction with the other evidence.

  Separately, an application has been made by HM Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon for authority to apply to the Hight Court for a fresh inquest into the death of Ronald Maddison at Porton Down. The application has been granted by the Attorney-General.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Stadium
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps will be taken to recover the £120 million of Lottery funding invested in the project should the decision be taken not to proceed with the development of a new national football stadium at Wembley after 30 April. [50928]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: This would be a matter for discussion between Sport England and the Football Association, and Wembley National Stadium Ltd.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans she has to withdraw her Department's support for the National Stadium project; what assessment she has made of the effect withdrawal would have on the future of the project; and if she will make a statement; [51761]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact of the FA's failure to satisfy the conditions she set out in her statement of 19 December 2001 on the future of the National Stadium project; and if she will make a statement. [51762]

  Tessa Jowell
  I set out to the House on 19 December 2001,Official Report, columns 291–93, the requirements that would need to be addressed by the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Limited, for the Government to be able to give support to the National Stadium project. That remains the Government's position
  4W
  and I understand the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Limited are working towards meeting those requirements.

  Football
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last attended a Nationwide Football League match. [R] [50848]

  Mr. Caborn
  I attended the match between Norwich City and Stockport County on Sunday 20 April at Carrow Road.

  Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire of 25 January 2002,Official Report, columns 1185–86W, on Government funding of the voluntary sector, if she will list the grant schemes and other mechanisms by which (a) her Department, (b) the Arts Council of England, (c) English Heritage and (d) Sport England distributes funding to voluntary sector organisations. [51404]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: The Department has no grant scheme by which it distributes Government funding to the voluntary sector. However, during the financial year 2000–01 we provided the Community Service Volunteers £67,000 towards the cost of their Lending Time project. We have contacted the Arts Council of England, English Heritage and Sport England to request the information required, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the running costs were of each of the Lottery distributors in the last 12 months. [51210]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: This information is not readily available. I will, however, write to the hon. Member as soon as it has been collated, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been distributed(a) in total and (b) to voluntary organisations by each of the Lottery distributors in each year of their existence. [51209]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: We do not hold this information centrally. We have, however, contacted each of the Lottery distributors to ascertain whether they hold this information, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the(a) grant schemes and (b) other mechanisms by which each of the Lottery distributors distribute funding to voluntary sector organisations. [51207]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: We do not hold this information centrally. We have, however, contacted each of the Lottery distributors to ascertain

  5W
  whether they hold this information, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times RAF aircraft(a) were fired upon and (b) responded with fire in Iraqi airspace in the last 12 months. [45135]

  Mr. Ingram
  RAF aircraft undertake patrols in Iraqi airspace as part of the international coalition's No Fly Zone (NFZ) enforcement operations. A single coalition NFZ patrol involves multiple aircraft types in an integrated package. Surface-to-air fire by Iraqi air defence weapons is recorded as an attack on the whole, rather than against individual aircraft types.

  Between 1 March 2001 and 20 March 2002 attacks on coalition aircraft by Iraqi Air Defence weapons, including anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles, were recorded on 488 occasions.

  On four occasions RAF aircraft released ordnance in self-defence responses to these attacks.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people employed by the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible under the new deal for young people in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseeker's allowance or other benefits. [49597]

  Dr. Moonie
  None of the non-departmental bodies sponsored by the Ministry of Defence have to date employed people on the new deal for young people scheme.

  Overtime Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on overtime payments for staff in his Department. [49125]

  Dr. Moonie
  Within the Ministry of Defence the policy for additional compensation to civil servants for hours worked in excess of normal conditioned hours differs depending on the grade of the employee and the duties that they routinely perform. The authorisation of overtime working has been delegated to responsible line managers and their associated finance staff.

  Senior civil servants are not eligible for overtime payments. A few senior non-industrial staff are classed as non-overtime grades, but are entitled to payments for long hours once a monthly threshold of 10 hours has been passed. Other non-industrial and industrial staff are entitled to overtime payments normally on the basis of time and a half for Monday to Saturday overtime working, and double time for attendance on Sundays and public and bank holidays. Although not obliged to do so, staff are encouraged to take time off in lieu.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the cost was to his Department of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated; [49095]

  (2) how many staff were involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions. [49137]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 929W, by the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).

  Mountain Warfare
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which units of the Army are trained for mountain warfare; and if he will make a statement. [49327]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are two Army units that are trained for mountain warfare; 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery and 59 Commando Regiment Royal Engineers. In addition, Army personnel attached to the Commando Logistic Regiment and the Commando Medical Squadron are similarly trained. All these units are affiliated to 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, which is part of the Naval Service.

  Deep Cut Army Camp
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) where the incident that led to the death of Private Cheryl James in 1995 within the Deep Cut Army Camp took place; where the death took place; and if he will make a statement; [51030]

  (2) if he will make a statement on (a) the cause of death, (b) the circumstances and (c) the coroner's verdict on the death of Private Cheryl James in 1995 at the Deep Cut Army Camp; [51028]

  (3) whether there was an MoD inquiry into the death of Private Cheryl James in 1995 at Deep Cut Army Camp; and if he will make a statement. [51029]

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

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) where the incident that led to the death of the soldier Shaun Benton in 1995 within the Deep Cut Army Camp took place; where the death took place; and if he will make a statement; [51025]

  (2) if he will make a statement on (a) the cause, (b) the circumstances and (c) the coroner's verdict on the death of Shaun Benton in 1995 at Deep Cut Army Camp. [51026]

  (3) whether there was an MoD inquiry into the death of the soldier Shaun Benton in 1995 at Deep Cut Army Camp; and if he will make a statement. [51027]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  7W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) where the incident that led to the death of Private James Collinson in 1995 within the Deep Cut Army Camp took place; where the death took place; and if he will make a statement; [51032]

  (2) if he will make a statement on (a) the cause of death, (b) the circumstances and (c) the coroner's verdict on the death of Private James Collinson in 1995 at the Deep Cut Army Camp; [51031]

  (3) whether there was an MOD inquiry into the death of Private James Collinson in 1995 at Deep Cut Army Camp; and if he will make a statement. [51033]

  Dr. Moonie
  Private James Collinson, Royal Logistic Corps, died from a gunshot wound to the head while on guard duty at the Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut, on 23 March 2002. The circumstances surrounding Private Collinson's death are still the subject of a police investigation and it would, therefore, be inappropriate to comment further at this stage. A date for the coroner's inquest has yet to be set. Only after the inquest has concluded can an Army Board of Inquiry into Private Collinson's death be convened.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK military personnel are stationed in Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [51016]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 669W, to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the RAF station in Gibraltar. [51013]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no current plans to change the role of the RAF station in Gibraltar.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his Spanish counterpart regarding the future of the Headquarters British Forces Gibraltar under the Brussels Process; and if he will make a statement. [51015]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had no such discussions.

  Blue Danube Atomic Bomb
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when drawings and specifications of the Blue Danube atomic bomb were placed in the Public Records Office; and if he will make a statement. [51024]

  Mr. Hoon
  The file containing this information about Blue Danube was transferred to the Public Record Office in August 1994.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the US Government regarding publication of details of the Blue Danube atomic bomb. [51022]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum number of warheads loaded on to the individual Trident D5 missiles currently deployed; and what is the maximum number of warheads that could be deployed on each of the United Kingdom's Trident D5 missiles. [51137]

  Mr. Ingram
  A maximum of 12 nuclear warheads could be deployed on each of the United Kingdom's Trident D5 missiles. The number of warheads loaded on to each missile currently deployed is withheld under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps were taken to ensure that the bidding process for contractors in respect of QinetiQ was conducted in accordance with his Department's rules; and if he will make a statement. [50680]

  Dr. Moonie
  An advert was placed in the Financial Times (European edition) on 8 March 2002 seeking expressions of interest in becoming a strategic partner to QinetiQ in writing to UBS Warburg by 15 March 2002. Almost 40 parties expressed an interest and were forwarded a pre-qualification questionnaire for response by 28 March. 16 completed responses have been received and these are at present being assessed with the intention of selecting those parties to receive the information memorandum.

  Senior Armed Forces
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 552W, on senior members of the armed forces, how many officers of the rank of general and above in each service attended (a) independent and (b) state schools. [51228]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have nothing to add to my earlier reply. This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service family accommodation and (b) single living accommodation units were of (i) grade one, (ii) grade two, (iii) grade three and (iv) grade four standard in each year between 1997 and 2001; and if he will make a statement. [51168]

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

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) married quarters and (b) single living accommodation quarters have been inspected for health and safety in the last 12 months; how many have failed health and safety inspections; and if he will make a statement. [51166]
  9W
  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many repairs have been made to(a) service family accommodation and (b) single living accommodation in each year between 1997 and 2001; how many of these have repeated repairs conducted in the previous year; and if he will make a statement. [51167]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  ABRO (Staff Rights)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the steps taken by his Department to protect staff rights in connection with service with ABRO, with special reference to the case of Mr. Alan Ely of Linlithgow. [46924]

  Mr. Ingram
  ABRO staff are Ministry of Defence civil servants and enjoy the same employment rights as all other staff employed in the Department. With particular regard to the dismissal case of Mr. Alan Ely, the appropriate departmental procedures were followed by ABRO.

  Legal proceedings in this matter are currently on-going. On legal advice the MOD has appealed against the level of the Employment Tribunal's compensation award, made to Mr. Ely for unfair dismissal.

  Donna Nook Range
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the annual cost of inspections of the Donna Nook range conducted by Explosives Ordnance Disposal personnel from RAF Coningsby has been in the last five years; and what his estimate is of the one-off cost of permanently disposing of munitions contained in this dump. [48661]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information on costs over the last five years is not available but, in the last financial year, the cost of RAF Coningsby-based personnel clearing RAF Donna Nook air weapons range was estimated to be £97,000. This figure does not include the cost of training, incidental expenses or the cost of replacing specialist bomb disposal equipment. Those personnel who undertake the clearance of the air weapons range also inspect the munitions dump weekly. No estimate has been made of the one-off cost of disposal of the munitions contained in this dump.

  Military Aviation Accidents
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military aviation accidents involving RAF and other countries' air forces occurred in the UK(a) from 1990 to 1997 and (b) from 1997 to the present, broken down by region and by air force; and if he will make a statement. [51726]

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

  Service Personnel (Transport)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what official guidelines there are concerning travel time for service personnel returning to their home base from overseas; and if he will make a statement. [51732]

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

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she proposes to modify the voluntary status of the UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme 2002 to comply with the mandatory status of the EU Trading Scheme when the latter comes into force in 2005. [48981]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: The Government welcome the principles of EU trading to encourage European industry to gain early experience of trading in advance of international trading under the Kyoto protocol. The Commission's proposal for a EU emissions trading scheme does differ in some respects from the UK scheme; one significant difference is that the Commission's proposal is for a mandatory scheme whereas the UK scheme is voluntary. The Government are working with the Commission and other member states during the negotiation process to develop a less rigid emissions trading scheme for the EU that takes account of existing national trading arrangements and provides for them to run their course. It has always been the Government's intention that the transition between the UK scheme and any EU or international trading scheme will be as seamless as possible.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she intends that the use of sinks and forest sequestration will be allowed as part of the UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme 2002. [48983]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Although the Government recognise that carbon sinks can provide environmental and other benefits, they believe that the UK's current priority should be actual emissions reductions, rather than carbon sequestration (either as sinks or storage) because of the complexities and uncertainties involved in forestry projects and other carbon sinks. For the time being, therefore, sinks and forest sequestration projects are not eligible for entry into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. This approach to sinks and sequestration will be kept under review.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the rules her Department has drawn up to ensure that the UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme 2002 delivers emission reductions additional to those required by regulation will be published. [48976]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: The Government have already made further details on the treatment of regulatory requirements in the UK

  11W
  Greenhouse Gas Trading Scheme available on request. The Government intend to formally publish these details later this week.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress with the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. [51943]

  Margaret Beckett
  The UK Emissions Trading Scheme went live on 2 April with the opening of the innovative, web-based Emissions Trading Registry, which records the transfer of allowances from buyer to seller. A number of trades have already taken place.

  A total of 34 organisations successfully joined the Scheme through a competitive auction held in March. In return for taking on legally binding emissions reduction targets, these organisations will each receive a share of the financial incentive that the Government are making available over the five years of the Scheme. They can choose to meet their annual targets by reducing emissions themselves or by buying surplus allowances from other participating organisations. To date, over 50 other organisations have opened trading accounts so that they can buy and sell allowances.

  We expect the volume of trades and number of participants to increase in the autumn and beyond when participation in the Scheme widens as some of the 6,000 companies in Climate Change Agreements begin buying allowances to enable them to meet their targets or selling any over-achievement to other participants. Projects that produce quantified reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will also be able, in time and subject to prior approval from the Government, to earn credits that can then be traded through the Scheme.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will state the baselines for the average emissions in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000 for each of the direct participants of the UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme 2002. [48977]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Direct participants in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme are currently in the process of having their baseline emissions independently verified by organisations accredited for this specific purpose by the UK Accreditation Service. These independent verification organisations will provide the Government with a verified baseline (an average of emissions in 1998–2000 unless there are regulatory requirements to take into account) for each direct participant. Once they have done so, the Government will make the baseline emissions for each direct participant publicly available. The Government expect to publish the first independently verified baselines at the end of this month. They will be available on www.defra.gov.uk/etr.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which of the direct participants of the UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme 2002 fall under(a) integrated pollution control and (b) the flare consents regime for offshore installations; and what reduction in emissions for these companies is stipulated by the conditions set in their IPC authorisations and flare consents. [48980]
  12W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Three direct participants (DuPont UK Ltd, Ineos Fluor Ltd and Rhodia Organique Fine Ltd) in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme are subject to regulation under Integrated Pollution Control, and two (British Petroleum plc and Shell UK Ltd) that are subject to the Department of Trade and Industry's flare consent regime. The terms of these regulatory requirements under IPC are already available on the public register at the following local Environment Agency offices: Coverdale House, York for DuPont, Richard Fairclough House, Warrington for Ineos Fluor and Rivers House, Bridgewater for Rhodia. The 2002 flare consents for British Petroleum installations and fields in the Emissions Trading Scheme allow 1,132.55 thousand standard cubic metres of natural gas flared per day. For Shell, the comparable number is 698.17 thousand standard cubic metres of natural gas flared per day.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to develop mechanisms(a) to prevent an increase in GM presence in conventional seeds and produce and (b) to prevent GM contamination of organic seeds and produce; and with whom this responsibility lies. [46622]

  Mr. Meacher
  The European Union has agreed interim measures to limit adventitious presence of approved GMOs in non-GM seeds to 0.5 per cent. More specific proposals are under discussion within the European Union. These would set cross-pollination thresholds ranging from 0.3 per cent. to 0.7 per cent. (depending on the species) in seed, in order broadly to keep GM presence in the resulting produce below the 1 per cent. threshold set for food. The Government are also considering what measures might be required to facilitate the co-existence of ordinary (non-seed) GM and non-GM crops and who should be responsible for such measures. For seed production, the grower of the seed crop is normally responsible for observing rules to achieve the desired level of seed purity. With organic seeds and produce, as with conventional seeds and produce, it is not possible to guarantee that GM cross-pollination will not occur, but we would like to aim for the lowest practical level, bearing in mind relevant factors, including the need to protect non-GM produce, the views of stakeholders, the practicalities of detection at low levels, and the costs involved.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the external organisations set up by her as part of the Government's strategy to combat climate changes indicating(a) their remits and (b) their sources at funding. [54448]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department, together with the Devolved Administrations, set up the Carbon Trust in April 2001. It is a private, not for profit organisation whose remit is to recycle around £100 million of climate change levy receipts over three years to accelerate the take
  13W
  up of cost effective, low carbon technologies by business and levy payers. It receives funding from my Department and the Devolved Administrations.

  In 1997, the Department also established the UK Climate Impacts Programme to help the public and private sector assess the impacts of climate change and plan how to adapt to it. We currently provide around £0.5 million a year to fund the (UKCIP).

  Many other organisations from both the private and public sectors also assist the Government with it's climate change strategy. These include the Emissions Trading

  Directive number

  Title

  Published in official journal

  Expected transposition date

  Transposed

  97/49

  The conservation of birds

  29 July 1997

  —

  29 July 1997

  97/62

  The conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

  27 October 1997

  —

  30 January 1998

  98/11

  Energy labelling of household lamps

  27 January 1998

  —

  1 July 1999

  98/15

  Amending Council Directive 91/271/EEC with respect to certain requirements established in Annex 1 thereof (Urban waste water treatment)

  27 February 1998

  —

  27 August 1998

  98/83

  Water Intended for Human Consumption

  3 November 1998

  September 2002

  —

  99/9

  Energy labelling household dishwashers

  26 February 1999

  —

  8 July 1999

  99/13

  Solvents

  11 March 1999

  December 2002

  —

  99/22

  Keeping Wild Animals in Zoos

  29 March 1999

  May 2003

  —

  99/30

  Limit Values of Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrogen

  22 April 1999

  1 May 2002

  —

  99/31

  Disposal of Waste by Landfill

  26 April 1999

  June 2002

  —

  99–32

  Sulphur Content of Liquid Fuels

  26 April 1999

  —

  11 March 2002

  99/51

  The marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations

  26 May 1999

  November 2002

  —

  2000/55

  Energy efficiency requirements for ballasts for fluorescent lighting

  18 September 2000

  21 May 2002

  —

  2000/60

  Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

  23 October 2000

  December 2003

  —

  2000/76

  Incineration of Waste

  4 December 2000

  December 2002

  —

  2001/18

  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing council Directions 90/220/EEC

  12 March 2001

  17 October 2002

  —

  2001/80/EC

  Limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants

  23 October 2001

  27 November 2002

  —

  2001/81/EC

  National emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants

  23 October 2001

  27 November 2002

  —

  2002/3/EC

  Ozone in ambient air

  12 February 2002

  9 September 2003

  —

  2002/31/EC

  Energy Labelling of household air conditioners

  22 March 2002

  1 January 2003

  —

  Marine Conservation
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost is of her Department's two-year pilot project for regional marine conservation in the North sea. [46990]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has a service level agreement with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to carry out the regional seas pilot in the Irish sea. The project should be completed by March 2004 and is planned to cost £397,200.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of noise pollution in the London borough of Havering. [49694]

  Mr. Meacher
  No specific assessment has been made of environmental noise across the whole of the London borough of Havering. The Government announced in their
  14W
  Group, the Climate Change Projects Office, the Energy Saving Trust, the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, the Tyndall Centre, and more besides.

  European Environmental Directives
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated in respect of the time taken to implement European environmental directives since May 1997. [49266]

  Mr. Meacher
  The table lists environment directives published since May 1997 alongside their transposition or expected transposition date.

  Rural White Paper (November 2000) the decision to consult on a national ambient noise strategy. The consultation on the development of this strategy—Towards a National Ambient Noise Strategy—closed on 15 March this year, the results of which will be published in due course. A significant contribution to the development of the strategy will be the determination of exposure to environmental noise through noise mapping. The London borough of Havering will be considered in this exercise.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the World Wildlife Fund about the protection of endangered species; and if she will make a statement. [50469]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have contacted me about the trade in endangered species twice in recent months.
  15W
  The first was to ask me to jointly fund with them an officer at TRAFFIC International to help support wildlife law enforcement in the UK. I was pleased to agree to this and we are making £50,000 available over the next two years.

  The second enclosed a copy of the report 'Traded to Extinction?' launching WWF's illegal wildlife trade campaign. I will be meeting WWF to discuss their concerns about this shortly.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what radioactive and toxic waste was dumped in the Irish sea from I May 2001 to 28 February 2002; what the origin of this radioactive and toxic waste was; and if she will make a statement. [47049]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK ceased all sea dumping of radioactive waste in 1982, and all sea dumping of industrial waste in 1992. The only material now licensed for disposal at sea is dredged sediment from ports, harbours etc., and small amounts of fish waste. All such disposal is rigorously controlled under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to ensure that the marine environment and ecosystems are protected.

  Farm Waste
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government will publish the DEFRA consultation paper on farm waste. [48304]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are preparing the regulations necessary to apply the provisions of the Waste Framework Directive to those types of agricultural waste which are not excluded from control under Article 2. A regulatory impact assessment (RIA) is also being prepared. On completion, the draft regulations and RIA will be issued for consultation with the farming industry and other interested groups. A firm date for publication of the consultation paper has not yet been set but our aim is to publish it later in the spring. I will ensure that a copy of the consultation paper is sent to the hon. Member when it is issued.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to reduce radioactive waste from the British Nuclear Fuels, Sellafield plant. [49326]

  Margaret Beckett
  All radioactive discharges from the UK are within national and international dose constraints. The UK has made substantial progress in reducing these discharges over the last 25 years. Discharges now are less than 1 per cent. of what they were then. In making these reductions we have concentrated on the most harmful radionuclides. However, we accept that more needs to be done to deliver further reductions.

  At a ministerial meeting of the OSPAR Commission at Sintra, Portugal in 1998, OSPAR members including the UK undertook to reduce radioactive discharges. Contracting parties must produce national plans by 1 July 2002 showing how they are going to achieve these
  16W
  reductions. The UK Radioactive Discharges Strategy will demonstrate how we are going to meet the targets for reducing radioactive discharges agreed at Sintra. The UK consulted about its draft strategy in June 2000 and we intend to publish the final version in time to meet the July 2002 deadline. Copies of the strategy will be placed in the House of Commons Library. We have also consulted on draft guidance to the Environment Agency which will help ensure that decisions on discharge authorisations for nuclear licensed sites in England are consistent with the UK strategy.

  The Environment Agency has also carried out a public consultation on its review of Sellafield authorisations. The agency will put its recommendations to Ministers later this year. The agency carried out a fast-track review of Technetium-99 discharges ahead of the main Sellafield review. Their recommendations are currently with DEFRA and DoH Ministers for consideration.

  Rhinoceros
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the threat to the rhinoceros population in Zimbabwe from illegal poaching. [48846]

  Mr. Meacher
  Most rhinoceros species are listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). This means that international trade in wild-taken rhinos and their products is prohibited. The UK goes further, however, in that it has banned trade in all raw rhino horn from whatever source.

  My officials have contacted the CITES Secretariat who confirm that although there are reports of an increase in poaching in general in Zimbabwe, they do not have any detailed information to support this. While there may be an increased risk of poaching, there is as yet no evidence to indicate that this is leading to a decline in rhino populations. We will keep the situation under review.

  Local Agenda 21
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the implementation of Local Agenda 21; what steps her Department is taking to promote its introduction by local authorities; and to what extent agreements on Local Agenda 21 signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 have been enacted. [46565]

  Mr. Meacher
  In June 1997 the Prime Minister set a target for all local authorities in the UK to adopt Local Agenda 21 strategies by the year 2000. A Government Office survey showed that 93 per cent. of local authorities met this target.

  The Local Government Act 2000 placed a duty on local authorities to prepare a community strategy for promoting or improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area and contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. The Government want to see sustainable development become a mainstream issue for local authorities, their partners, and local communities. It believes that the most effective way to achieve this is to subsume Local Agenda 21 strategies within community strategies.
  17W
  The Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions have introduced a Best Value Performance Indicator to report on local authorities' progress with community strategies. A survey of English and Welsh Authorities by the Local Government Association in autumn 2001 found that, of the 67 per cent. which responded, 27 per cent. of authorities had developed a strategy. Of those yet to develop a strategy, nearly 80 per cent. said they would have one by March 2002, and the remainder would be published by March 2003.

  Packaging Waste
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 3 April 2002,Official Report, column 1027W, on packaging waste, when the percentage levels of (a) business packaging waste recovery and (b) business packaging recycling in the United Kingdom in 2001 will be published. [49904]

  Mr. Meacher
  We aim to publish the figures within the next week.

  Lead Shot
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the consultation on the recommendations of the Lead Shot Legislation (England) Review Group; and whether it is her policy that its proposals for changes to legislation should be implemented. [51939]

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Modulation rate currently proposed (%)

  3.5

  3.5

  4.5

  Government match-funding1 (£ million)2

  45

  47

  59

  Modulation rate proposed by Policy Commission (%)

  3.5

  10

  10

  Government match-funding1 (£ million)2

  45

  124

  133

  Additional match-funding required if Policy Commission proposals adopted in full (£ million)

  0

  77

  74

  1 Assuming 100 per cent, match-funding.

  2 Note that these estimates are based on forecasts of subsidy receipts and are therefore subject to some uncertainty—for example future euro-sterling exchange rates (the rate used here is Euro 1 = £0.62)

  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultation she undertook, and with whom, prior to determining the methodology for designating nitrate vulnerable zones. [48200]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Since adopting the Nitrates Directive in 1991, the Government have consulted extensively on all aspects of Nitrate Vulnerable Zone designation:
  1992: First consultation on methodology for identifying NVZ areas in England and Wales;
  1993: Second consultation on methodology for identifying NVZ areas in England and Wales;
  1994: Consultation on proposed NVZ areas in England and Wales;
  1995: Consultation on proposed Action Programme measures to apply in NVZ areas in England and Wales
  1997: Consultation on draft regulations establishing Action Programme measures to apply in NVZ areas in England and Wales;
  18W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has conducted a consultation exercise on the proposals put forward by the Lead Shot Legislation (England) Review Group. Over 1,800 consultation papers were issued. The response rate was low. The report contained proposals for some changes to the site list in Schedule 1 of the Lead Shot Legislation 1999, removing some sites not considered important for waterfowl and adding others which were considered important. It also contained proposals for the removal of Common Snipe and Golden Plover from Schedule 2. No respondents disagreed with the recommendations. The amendments recommended will therefore be implemented by Statutory Instrument under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in due course.

  Moduletron
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost to public funds of implementing in full the proposals for moduletron contained in the report of the Policy Commission on Farming and Food. [48562]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: In discussion with stakeholders, others in Government and the devolved administrations, DEFRA is considering the implications of the Policy Commission's proposals on modulation very carefully. The table below provides preliminary estimates, for the three years starting 2003–04, of the costs in England if the rate of modulation were increased as the Policy Commission propose. Any decision on whether to adjust the rate of modulation is subject to the Spending Review.
  2002: Consultation on completing implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England.

  All farmers potentially affected by each round of proposed designations have been invited to participate, as well as a broad range of stakeholder organisations.

  Air Pollutants
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures the Government have put in place to reduce the levels of the air pollutants(a) sulpher dioxide, (b) NO, and (c) PM10. [48545]

  Mr. Meacher
  Levels of all three pollutants have reduced significantly in recent years as emissions from industry and road transport have fallen. The National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory shows that emissions of each pollutant fell by the following amounts between 1990 and 1999 (the latest year for which figures are available).
  19W

  Kilotonnes

  Pollutant

  Emissions in 1990

  Emissions in 1999

  Percentage reduction

  Sulphur dioxide

  3,754

  1,187

  68

  Oxides of Nitrogen

  2,760

  1,605

  42

  Particles (PM10)

  305

  186

  39

  In respect of sulphur dioxide, the most significant emissions reductions in recent years have come about as a result of changes in industrial practices as well as the regulatory controls we have imposed. We estimate, for example, that fuel switching from coal to gas in power stations (which began in 1992–93) has reduced sulphur dioxide emissions by one million tonnes from what it might otherwise have been. We also estimate that the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation to two large coal power stations in 1993–94 has reduced emissions by 0.2 million tonnes; and that the use of lower-sulphur coal has reduced emissions by about 0.15 million tonnes. In respect of particles and oxides of nitrogen, the most significant contribution has come from the reductions in road transport emissions which are largely the result of the progressively tighter European Union standards for new motor vehicles and fuels. The introduction of three way catalysts on petrol vehicles in the early 1990s, for example, is estimated to have reduced emissions of oxides of nitrogen in 1999 by about 30 per cent. compared to what emissions might otherwise have been. Improvements in diesel vehicle technology have also made a significant contribution to reducing emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particles. The UK Government have helped to incentivise the early uptake of clean fuels (such as ultra-low-sulphur diesel and petrol) by setting preferential duty rates for them.

  Organic Pollutants
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress with regard to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. [46559]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants was adopted on 22 May 2001 and has 124 signatories. To come into force 50 countries need to ratify, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has set a target of 2004 at the latest. The Convention has been ratified by five countries, with work on ratification in progress in others including the UK. However, the use of all ten intentionally produced chemicals currently listed in the Convention has already been banned here.

  In June UNEP will convene a sixth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, which developed the Convention, to oversee implementation of international action during the interim period and to prepare for the first Conference of the Parties after entry into force.

  Sustainable Development
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library copies of the(a) United Kingdom submissions and (b) submissions by other nations relevant to United
  20W
  Kingdom policies on sustainable development, made to the preparatory meeting in New York for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. [49269]

  Mr. Meacher
  At the Third Preparatory Committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the UK Government worked with European Union partners in order to submit a joint EU position to the Chair. The submission addressed the Chair's document which was tabled at the end of the Second Preparatory Committee on 12 February. A copy of the document will he placed in the Library.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government plan to take(a) nationally, (b) Europe-wide and (c) internationally towards launching a mechanism to promote and develop international objectives for sustainable development in Johannesburg. [44414]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are working with their partners nationally, in Europe and internationally towards the development of proposals for the Johannesburg Summit that focus on the practical implementation of international sustainable development objectives. In particular we want to see a specific action programme agreed on resource efficiency, freshwater and sanitation, oceans, energy supply, sustainable development in Africa and to improve international governance. The UK has five initiatives in hand on energy, freshwater, forestry, finance, and tourism. We are urgently discussing with partners, especially within the EU, whether any of these could form an input into large scale global projects.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff in his Department's press office have received(a) termination and (b) redundancy payments in each of the last four years. [41077]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None.

  Equal Opportunities
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment: and what progress has been achieved. [44390]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No policy appraisal baseline has yet been established, other than the existing personnel-related targets for diversity. The FCO diversity strategy agreed in January 2002, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House, sets out the strategic requirement to consult widely on the UK domestic implications of foreign policy. Action plans are under development as a result, including the future development of an appropriate cross-cutting structure for mainstreaming equality in foreign policy development.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by
  21W
  his Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been (a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [44388]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No gender impact assessments have yet been drawn up by the FCO. The FCO diversity strategy agreed in January 2002, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House, sets out the strategic requirement to consult widely on the UK domestic implications of foreign policy. Action plans are under development as a result, including developing wider ideas for extending the FCO's consultative network.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since August 1997. [44389]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The FCO routinely monitors data on gender, race, disability and age as part of its diversity monitoring process. No new data series have been commissioned since August 1997.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of staff at his Department are justices of the peace; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become justices of the peace. [44551]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no strategy to encourage members of its staff to become justices of the peace. However, in accordance with section 50 of the Employee Rights Act 1996 (ERA), Heads of Department may grant special paid leave to officers required to attend court as justices of the peace. No central records are kept of which staff have been appointed to such positions, nor of leave granted to enable them to fulfil their duties.

  Israel
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration the United Kingdom has given, in consort with European Union partners, to establishing sanctions against Israel, until Israel implements United Nations resolutions in full. [49483]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are not aware of any formal proposal for the EU to consider sanctions. The idea of sanctions has been discussed before but there has not been a consensus in favour. The Government's view is that we should at this stage focus on achieving a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian areas.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Israel in respect of the use of British-supplied military vehicles by the Israeli army in its invasion of the Palestinian territories in March and April. [49482]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on 15 April 2002,Official Report, columns 722–23W.

  Staff Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost in 2001–02 was of the pay increase to staff in his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 2002–03. [50410]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In 2001–02 the figure for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was £4.5 million. For the British Council the figure was £0.93 million. The increase for our agency, Wilton Park, was £153,000. Information on our four other, much smaller, NDPBs is currently not available. I will write to the hon. Member shortly about them.

  The pay increase for 2002–03 has not yet been agreed.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to clear the backlog of cases being sent by entry clearance officers. [50697]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not clear from the question to which backlog, if any, that my hon. Friend refers. I should be grateful for clarification of this and will ensure that my hon. Friend receives an early response.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when the appeal proposed in the case of Baljides Singh (post ref 819403/0115-New Delhi) arrived in London; [50696]

  (2) on what date the explanatory statement in the case of Mr. Fuzal-Ur-Rahman post ref: ISB-/E4525 arrived from Islamabad in London. [50701]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not our practice to disclose details of individual entry clearance cases in a public forum. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East about this case in the next few days.

  Professional Indemnity Insurance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many contracts his Department has with consultants; what level of professional indemnity insurance is standard in contracts with small consultants; whether he can make exceptions to the level of professional indemnity insurance; and what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments about the level of professional indemnity insurance. [50833]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: Information on the number of contracts with consultants could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Decisions regarding the appropriate level of professional indemnity insurance are taken on a case-by-case basis. A common indemnity insurance limit for small consultancy work is £500,000. As with previous Administrations under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of discussions which form part of the process of policy development and analysis.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has obtained an undertaking from the Government of Spain to abide by the results of referendums held in Gibraltar on its future status. [51450]

  Peter Hain
  The Government of Spain are fully aware of the public statements made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers that in the event of the people of Gibraltar rejecting any joint proposals put forward by Britain and Spain, Her Majesty's Government will continue to stand by the people of Gibraltar politically, legally and morally. This is not a matter for negotiation with Spain.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals are being discussed with his Spanish counterpart in relation to the future status of Gibraltar. [51451]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Foreign Secretary's statement in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 735.

  Civil Service (Recruitment)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what percentage of policy entrants were educated at(a) public school, (b) Oxford university and (c) Cambridge university in each year since 1997; [50566]

  (2) what percentage of the diplomatic service both operational and policy were educated at (a) public school, (b)Oxford university and (c) Cambridge university in each year since 1997; [50569]

  (3)what percentage of operational entrants were educated at (a) public school, (b) Oxford university and (c) Cambridge university in each year since 1997. [50568]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information is as follows:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Policy entrants

  Percentage from Oxbridge

  48

  65

  44

  57

  Percentage from independent schools

  64

  61

  60

  64

  Operational entrants

  Percentage from Oxbridge

  6

  7

  4

  4

  Percentage from independent schools

  24

  37

  33

  37

  The recruitment section records Oxford and Cambridge jointly and records school information as independent (which includes public schools) or comprehensive. These figures are published in the departmental report.

  General Affairs Council
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason no devolved administration Minister attended the 4121 European Union Council of Ministers (General) meeting on 15 April; which suggestions and matters of concern from the Scottish Executive were raised in their absence by the UK Government delegation: and what information 24W
  and evidence was provided by his Department to enable effective post-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [51729]

  Peter Hain
  Decisions on Ministerial attendance at Council meetings are taken on a case-by-case basis by the lead UK Minister. The Foreign Secretary attended this meeting, representing all parts of the UK.

  It is the responsibility of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Executive's involvement in preparations for and follow-up to EU Council meetings. These arrangements are a matter for the Committee and the Scottish Executive. This Department provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff left the service of his Department and its agencies in the year ended 31 March 2001; how many left before attaining the formal retirement age of 60 years; and in respect of how many his Department and its agencies assumed responsibilities for making payments until retirement age. [37551]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  314 staff left the department between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001. 56 people left before their formal retirement age. This Department is still making annual compensation payments to 49 of those until they reach formal retirement age.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which Bills introduced by her Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses; and what plans she has for the future use of such clauses. [49626]

  Clare Short
  In the last five years the Department for International Development has introduced the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill (in 1998) and the International Development Bill (in 2001). Neither contained sunset clauses. The Department has no current plans for future legislation.

  Overseas Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Resource Centre for the Social Dimensions of Business Practice core contract. [49166]

  Clare Short
  Our contract with the International Business Leaders Forum to support the Resource Centre was awarded in 1999 following a competitive tendering process. The contract will end shortly. It has contributed
  25W
  to understanding of the role of business in poverty elimination and has also established a valuable business and poverty database.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Mine Action Programme 2000 in the former Yugoslavia; [49188]

  (2) what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Mine Action Programme in Yugoslavia. [49196]

  Clare Short
  All DFID's programmes in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia are subject to regular in-country monitoring by DFID's humanitarian mines adviser. We are satisfied that these programmes represent good value for money.

  The Mine Action Programme for FRY Kosovo has been the subject of an independent evaluation for the UN by the PRAXIS Group Ltd., an international management consulting firm. The summary of the report concluded the mine action programme in Kosovo was a resounding success. The UK Government were also praised for responding quickly and effectively to the mines threat in Kosovo. The UK-funded part of the Kosovo programme was completed using a combination of NGO and commercial demining organisations which were selected on the basis of competency and value for money considerations. In the case of commercial organisations these were selected on a system of competitive tendering.

  In Bosnia the UK contribution to demining is made through an international trust fund. The UN oversees the fund and the UK's ambassador sits on the fund's advisory board. Contracts for demining are let on the basis of competitive bidding open to both commercial organisations and NGOs.

  In Croatia and Macedonia DFID made contributions to the UN system for mine clearance, awareness and support for capacity building. Contracts awarded by the UN are subject to their internal systems for competitive bidding and value for money considerations.

  Programmes

  Countries

  Global

  UNDP: Small Arms Project: Weapons Collection, Management and Destruction

  Global

  Small Arms Survey: Research and Analysis

  Global

  International Action Network on Small Arms Regional and Global Network Development programme

  Global

  Geneva Forum meeting in preparation for the UN Conference

  Global

  Funding the participation of experts from developing countries in the UN Conference on Small Arms

  Global

  Saferworld: Programme to Stem the Proliferation of Small Arms

  Europe, east Africa, southern Africa, central, south and south-east Asia

  International Alert: Monitoring and Implementing the Small Arms Light Weapons Controls

  Europe, Latin America, west Africa

  Regional

  The African Conference on the Implementation of the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms: Needs and Partnerships

  Africa wide

  SaferAfrica: Arms Management and Disarmament

  Africa wide

  Latin America and Caribbean Initiatives on Illicit Trafficking in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

  Latin America

  United Nations Regional Centre for Peace Disarmament and Development in Latin America and Caribbean: Implementing the OAS Convention

  Latin America

  Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 341W, on catering services, for what reason there were increases from 1999 to 2000 of £44,767.18 and £6,935.57 in the costs of in-house canteen services and catering services, respectively. [50512]

  Clare Short
  The increase of £44,767.18 was largely due to the refurbishment and redecoration of the staff restaurant in our London offices at the start of 2000, involving the purchase of new catering equipment (freezers, cold counter and dishwasher), carpets and furniture. In addition, subsidies paid to catering contractors increased by £6,800 per annum in our East Kilbride office and by £7,300 per annum in London. The increase of £6,935.57 in catering services was a result of greater usage of hospitality services (i.e. teas, coffees, buffets etc.) on offer at both locations, principally as a result of the contractors advertising the facility more widely, coupled with a sharp increase in the number of meetings being held in both locations.

  Arms Proliferation
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her written answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 885W, if she will list the projects which constitute her Department's programme that seeks to reduce the uncontrolled proliferation of small arms and light weapons; and in which countries each of these projects operates. [50595]

  Clare Short
  The United Kingdom is committed to combating small arms availability and misuse. In partnership with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, my Department has established a comprehensive UK Small Arms and Light Weapons Reduction Programme. Over the next three years we will allocate a minimum of £19.5 million to UN agencies, regional organisations, Governments and non-governmental organisations seeking to develop and implement local, national, regional and international measures to combat small arms problems. The table lists the programmes which the Small Arms and Light Weapons Reduction Programme has supported.
  27W

  Programmes

  Countries

  Sub-regional

  Viva Rio—Reducing Small Arms and Light Weapons Impact: Civil Society Participation in Security Sector Reform within Mercado Commun Del Sur

  Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Paraguay, Uruguay

  The Nairobi Secretariat: Implementing the Nairobi Declaration

  East Africa, the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa

  Security Research and Information Centre (SRIC) Controlling Small Arms and Light

  East Africa, the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa

  Weapons in the Great Lakes Regions and the Horn of Africa

  HMG support for combating small arms problems in Central and Eastern Europe

  Central and eastern Europe

  National

  Tanzania National Action Plan for Arms Management and Disarmament

  Tanzania

  Government Funding
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous) of 25 January 2002,Official Report, columns 1185–6W, on Government funding of the voluntary sector, if she will list the grant schemes and other mechanisms by which her Department distributes funding to voluntary sector organisations. [51411]

  Clare Short
  The principal funding mechanisms we use to support voluntary sector organisations and civil society more generally are as follows:Partnership Programme Agreements (PPAs): strategic level agreements, which set an overall framework for DFID's work with the organisation linked to strategic funding.
  Civil Society Challenge Fund: open to UK based organisations working in partnership with organisations in developing countries.
  Development Awareness Fund: open to any UK based organisations for work to raise awareness and understanding of development issues.

  In addition, DFID supports specific programmes or activities of voluntary organisations through its regional programmes, as well as, for example, our conflict and humanitarian aid budget. Voluntary organisations can also benefit from some of DFID's research funds, for example the Engineering Knowledge and Research programme. DFID funding for UK-based non-governmental organisations is typically close to £200 million per year.

  Complaints
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many complaints were registered against her Department and its predecessor Departments in(a) 1990 to 1996 and (b) 1997 to 2002; how many are current; and what proportion were (i) taken up and (ii) upheld by the parliamentary ombudsman in those periods. [51585]

  Clare Short
  Detailed records of all complaints made against the Department are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Details of cases taken up by the parliamentary ombudsman are contained in the ombudsman's annual reports, which are available in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Public Spending
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on how the public spending plans of her Department have been affected by the Budget. [51734]
  28W
  Clare Short
  DFID's budget for 2002–03 remains as announced in the 2000 Spending Review. Allocations for 2003–04 to 2005–06 will be determined through the 2002 Spending Review over the next few months.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to tackle disorder and antisocial behaviour in the north-west. [47069]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are taking urgent action to tackle antisocial behaviour and disorder across the country and in the north-west. This includes the new measures contained in the Police Reform Bill as well as action by Crime and Disorder Partnerships with young people to divert them away from crime and nuisance crime.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour. [47094]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), earlier to the similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle).

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been approved in Lancashire; and what recent representations he has received on their implementation. [47099]

  Mr. Denham
  From the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) in April 1999 to the end of September 2001 (the last point to which data are available), 16 orders had been granted in Lancashire.

  A number of individuals and groups have made representations on the implementation of antisocial behaviour orders. They have been taken into account in formulating improved guidance for practitioners, which is being prepared, and the legislative changes proposed in the Police Reform Bill which include the introduction of interim ASBOs to stop antisocial behaviour more quickly; enabling county courts to make ASBOs in particular circumstances and empowering registered social landlords and the British Transport Police to apply directly for ASBOs to deal with the particular problems of antisocial behaviour they face.

  Police Patrols
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he collates on the proportion of police officers involved in patrolling public places on(a) foot and (b) in vehicles. [47074]

  Angela Eagle
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary collects data on the proportion of police officers who are predominately assigned to operational patrol in uniform, either on foot or in a vehicle (including bicycles and motor cycles). Traffic and motorway patrols and dog sections are excluded from these figures. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary's data do not differentiate between time spent patrolling on foot or in vehicles.

  In 2000–01, 48.3 per cent. of police officers in England and Wales were assigned to operational patrol. For Hertfordshire, 54.3 per cent. of officers were assigned to this function.

  However, we know from the PA Consulting report, "Diary of a Police Officer", that too much time is spent in the police station on paperwork. We are determined to find a solution to this so that officers can spend more time out of the station.

  Police Stations
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of police stations in fighting crime. [47077]

  Angela Eagle
  It is important that the police service responds to the needs of the public by being accessible and visible. Strategic location of police stations as part of a whole range of methods of police presence, is key to this approach.

  This year we have allocated to police authorities £179 million grant and credit approval for capital expenditure with a further £20 million to be allocated specifically for premises renewal, compared with £157 million in total last year.

  Police Housing
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on the sale of dedicated police housing by police authorities. [47078]

  Angela Eagle
  The management of police property is entirely a matter for police authorities. Decisions relating to the sale of housing and other properties are not ones in which Ministers have any power to intervene. I would expect police authorities to take likely future needs into account when considering what approach offers best value.

  The Audit Commission in its report entitled "Action Stations Improving the Management of the Police Estate" recommended that police forces identify and dispose of buildings that were unsuitable or had maintenance liabilities which were beyond the forces' means and rationalise their remaining estate.

  Trial Delays
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce delays in bringing criminal cases to trial. [47079]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government have introduced a number of procedural reforms to ensure that criminal cases are brought before the courts with the minimum of delay. These include bringing charged cases before magistrates courts at the first available hearing; sending indictable only cases straight to the Crown court following first appearance in the magistrates court; and reducing by more than half the time taken to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence (from 142 days to 67 by December 2001).

  Looking ahead, the Government are also formulating a set of exacting targets to further reduce delay; running pilot schemes involving extended court sitting hours and closer Crown Prosecution Service/police liaison prior to charge.

  Her Majesty's chief inspectors of the Court Service and the Crown Prosecution Service are also conducting a national inspection of listing, to seek to identify how courts can manage their case loads most efficiently, and we look forward to making use of their findings and recommendations in order to make continued progress in reducing delay.

  Police Initiatives
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the number of initiatives and targets in relation to the police since 1997. [47081]

  Mr. Denham
  Since 1997, the police in England and Wales have been involved in a number of initiatives. Some relate only to the police, while others, such as the introduction of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, bring together a number of partners to concentrate on those issues of greatest concern to the communities they serve.

  Police authorities are required to set targets for reductions in domestic burglary, vehicle crime and, in five major cities, robbery. This month the Street Crime Action Team was set up to help deliver these robbery targets. The police service also has a key role to play in delivering Government targets relating to, for example. drug misuse and persistent young offenders.

  The House is also aware of the radical programme of work being taken forward following the White Paper "Policing a new Century", much of which is contained in the Police Reform Bill.

  Entry Screening
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the procedures for screening applications to enter the United Kingdom. [47082]

  Angela Eagle
  In 2001, 71,700 people applied for asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom. This represents an 11 per cent. fall in applications compared with a 2 per cent. fall for the European Union generally.
  31W
  Overall there were a record 118,000 decisions made with 74 per cent. refused, 9 per cent. granted asylum and 17 per cent. granted exceptional leave to remain. The backlog of undecided applications was more than halved and continues to fall.

  79 per cent. of appeals were dismissed by the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) in 2001. This is an indication that despite the increase in decision-making, the quality remains high.

  Provisionally, 9,285 principal applicants were removed in 2001, an increase of 3 per cent. on 2000 and the highest annual total on record.

  Street Crime (Wandsworth)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on(a) Operating Safer Streets and (b) the Robbery Reduction Initiative as they affect London, with particular reference to the London borough of Wandsworth. [470831

  Mr. Denham
  The first phase of Operation Safer Streets, the Metropolitan police's anti-street crime initiative in London's nine worst affected boroughs, ran for eight weeks from 4 February until the end of March. The force statistics show that the operation has had a marked impact on street crime offences. In week eight of the operation, street crime allegations in the nine boroughs were 21 per cent. down on the corresponding week last year. The second phase began on 15 April and will run until March 2003. It will be extended to include a further six London boroughs, including Wandsworth.

  The Metropolitan police force area is one of the 10 areas included in the Government's wider street crime initiative, which involves a concerted response to street crime across all the criminal justice and social agencies.

  Police Morale
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police morale. [47085]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no established direct method of measuring the level of morale in the police service.

  We are determined to tackle those elements of police officers' working lives that can create frustration and detract from their ability to do their jobs in the way that they would wish. We are committed to investment in scientific and technological support and to reducing the burden of unnecessary bureaucracy.

  We are seeking agreement on a package of reforms to police pay and conditions of service which would leave the vast majority of officers better off. The package is now subject to conciliation in the PNB.

  We have turned around the decline in police numbers that started under the last Government. By 31 January the police service was at record strength and we are on course for our target of 130,000 officers by spring 2003.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of changes in the levels of violent crime in the last 12 months. [47086]
  32W
  Mr. Denham
  The latest survey of violent crime is contained in the 2001 British Crime Survey, which indicated that violent crime fell by 19 per cent. between 1999 and 2000. Recent recorded crime statistics produced by the Metropolitan Police show a rise in recorded street robbery. That is why we have launched an initiative aimed at reducing the level of street crime in the 10 areas of England and Wales with the highest levels of street robbery. The programmes will focus on curbing the rise in street robberies and the number of illegally held weapons, as well as the adoption of fast track prosecutions to ensure that offenders are brought to justice speedily. The budget contained £180 million in new money and a further £100 million to be drawn from the Criminal Justice Reserve. These funds will be used for extra police, extra support staff, an increase in police operations and an additional 2,300 additional prison and remand places.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about plans to reduce crime committed by juveniles. [47087]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary for State for Culture, Media and Sport, and I are both members of the cross-Government action group to tackle street crime. We both fully recognise the potential of sport and the arts to divert young people from offending and we are working together to develop this.

  "Secure Borders, Safe Haven" White Paper
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responses he has received to his paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven—Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain"; and if he will make a statement. [47089]

  Angela Eagle
  We have received 330 responses to the White Paper from organisations and individuals. We will arrange for copies of the responses from organisations to be placed in the Library unless they have indicated they do not wish their responses to be published.

  Street Crime
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the 10 force street crime initiative. [47090]

  Mr. Denham
  The street crime initiative starts operation this month across the 10 force areas with the highest levels of robbery: Avon and Somerset, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Metropolitan Police, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire, Thames Valley, West Midlands, West Yorkshire. It involves the police in targeting offenders who commit robbery, snatch theft. carjacking and offences involving the illegal possession and use of firearms. The criminal justice'agencies will prioritise these cases to ensure that those taken off the streets by the police are dealt with quickly and effectively from arrest to disposal in specially designated street crime courts in each area. We have also strengthened the powers of the courts in the 10 areas by introducing electronic
  33W
  tagging to ensure that young people comply with bail conditions, and by giving magistrates enhanced powers to remand juveniles in secure accommodation.

  The initiative also brings together the resources and expertise of non criminal justice system agencies to help tackle the causes of street crime and take preventive action. The initiative will include, for example, more schemes in place involving police in schools, more truancy sweeps, better information exchange between schools, the police and social services, diversionary activities and advice and services for young people, and early access to drug treatment provision.

  Community Support Officers
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department will consider a further round of applications for funding for community support officers to assist the police. [47091]

  Mr. Denham
  The Police Reform Bill, which is still subject to parliamentary scrutiny, contains provisions which will allow chief officers of police to designate support staff as community support officers. It will be open to police forces to choose to use this available means to employ community support officers.

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the criminal justice system. [47092]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government recognise that the criminal justice system is not working well enough on its key goals of crime reduction and justice.

  To this end the forthcoming White Paper on Criminal Justice will include a wide variety of measures to increase efficiency and effectiveness across the criminal justice system. For example, these measures will include improving the workings of the jury system; and changing the rules governing the issue of disclosure.

  We will also seek to improve the rules of evidence; and bring more persistent offenders to justice.

  The Government will be looking closely at the possibility of reforming court culture in order to support vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. This may include the establishment of a Victims' Ombudsman.

  The issue of sentencing will also be addressed to provide greater protection for the public; and include programmes designed to reduce the chance of re-offending.

  The Government intend to publish full details of these proposals in legislation later in the year.

  Volunteering (Older People)
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to promote volunteering by older people. [47093]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government believe it is important to utilise fully the skills and talents of older people. That is why the Home Office is investing £20 million in the Experience Corps, which aims to recruit 250,000 volunteers over three years. We also provide funding for REACH, RSVP and other organisations which promote 34W
  and encourage volunteering by older people. We have provided £1.5 million in funding for local and national organisations, such as Help the Aged, as part of the Older Volunteers Initiative, which addresses issues of raising quality and quantity of voluntary opportunities for older people. We are evaluating the initiative with a view to publishing the good practice it has identified.

  Re-offending
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the incidence of re-offending of those sentenced to(a) community sentences and (b) fines in the last five years. [47095]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Information on re-offending rates, as opposed to reconviction rates, for persons sentenced to community sentences and fines is not collected. Re-offending rates are not normally measured as they rely on the self-reporting of offending by offenders. Such an approach can lead to questions over the reliability of data based on individuals' recollection and willingness to tell an official source about their offending behaviour.

  However, information on reconviction rates for persons convicted of a standard list offence and sentenced to a community penalty or fine is collected. The reconviction rate is normally measured over a period of two years from the commencement of the community penalty or the date a person receives a fine. The reconviction rates are shown in the table. These rates include convictions for offences committed prior to the offences for which a financial or community sentence was imposed.

  Reconviction rates for persons commencing community sentences or fined for a standard list offence and reconvicted within two years.

  Reconviction rates1 for persons commencing community sentences or fined for a standard list offence and reconvicted within two years.

  Percentage reconvicted within two years

  All community penalties

  Persons fined

  1994

  54

  45

  1995

  56

  43

  1996

  56

  36

  1997

  55

  38

  1998

  56

  35

  1Unadjusted for factors which are known to have an impact on reconviction, such as previous criminal history, age, gender, and offence.

  Youth Crime
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to reduce youth crime. [47096]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are supporting a wide ranging programme which is tackling the issue of youth offending. This includes working with families through the Sure Start initiative, neighbourhoods through Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, education services through reducing exclusions and improving attendance and implementation of the 10 year drugs strategy.
  35W
  The improvements made to the youth justice system have also resulted in the tackling of delays in the system and the speeding up of justice, establishing new youth justice structures and making available expanded powers for the courts and police to use.

  Combined with the Home Secretary's recent announcement on making remand facilities available for persistent young offenders aged 12–16, a greater impetus to the use of antisocial behaviour orders by local authorities and the establishment of the London youth crime task force we are taking forward a programme which deals head on with youth crime on all fronts.

  Dungavel Detention Centre
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on conditions for asylum seekers at the Dungavel detention centre. [47097]

  Angela Eagle
  All removal centres must provide for the safety and care of detainees in compliance with the Detention Centre Rules 2001. The rules set out the rights and responsibilities of those held in removal centres and of those who operate such centres. The contract with the Premier Custodial Group Ltd., which operates Dungavel removal centre, reflects the requirements of the rules.

  Prison Suicides
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have committed suicide in the last year for which figures are available; and how many of these occurred in safe cells. [47098]

  Beverley Hughes
  There were 72 self-inflicted deaths of prisoners in 2001, a reduction of 11 per cent. on the year 2000. Two of these occurred in safer cells.

  Public Sector Workers (Attacks)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to prevent attacks on public sector workers. [47075]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Violence, threats and abuse to workers from any sector are unacceptable.

  The Health and Safety Commission has agreed a three-year programme of work (2000–03) to help employers tackle the increasing problem of work-related violence. We will be working with the Health and Safety Executive, who are responsible for implementing Commission policies, on elements of their programme to help to reduce the incidents of work-related violence.

  In addition, the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch have also been successful in securing funding under the Invest to Save Budget for Safer Hospitals and Safer Schools projects. Both projects will involve bringing together both existing and emerging technologies to deliver reductions in violent crime against staff, patients and pupils and a reduction in associated property crime.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make an outline statement on his Department's policy on home detention curfew for prisoners released before the end of their sentence. [47080]
  36W
  Beverley Hughes
  Under the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme prisoners serving over three months and under four years, who pass a risk assessment, may be released up to 60 days early to spend the final part of their sentence under an electronic curfew. 46,000 prisoners have been released on the scheme since it began in January 1999. Over 93 per cent. completed the scheme successfully.

  From the beginning of May 2002, prisoners serving sentences of three months or over but under 12 months, with the exception of those convicted of violent or drugs offences within the previous three years and prisoners who have any history of sexual offending, will be released on HDC for the latter part of their sentence unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.

  999 Calls
  Mr. Raney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 999 calls have been made to Suffolk Constabulary since July 1997; and how many of these calls needed an emergency police response. [50582]

  Mr. Denham
  The figures are as follows:

  1997 to 02

  Number of 999 calls made

  Number of these calls which needed an emergency police response

  1997–98

  61,961

  38,524

  1998–99

  75,079

  38,011

  1999–2000

  88,740

  35,795

  2000–01

  100,203

  19,960

  2001–02

  117,452

  19,671

  Total

  443,435

  131,961

  1Suffolk Constabulary changed the grading policy to respond in a more scientific way.

  Information on other aspects of Suffolk Constabulary's performance can be found in their Policing Plan 2002–03.

  Tagged Offenders (Norfolk)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many tagged offenders have re-offended in Norfolk following release from prison. [47070]

  Beverley Hughes
  The data requested are not readily available. To provide a geographical breakdown of re-offending would incur a disproportionate cost. However, less than 2 per cent. of offenders placed on the home detention curfew scheme across the country have been reported as committing a further offence. This low figure would suggest that the scheme is operating effectively.

  Prisoners (Education)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work his Department is undertaking to raise the educational achievements of serving prisoners. [47076]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have increased prison education funding by 15 per cent. in real terms over the next two years. We have set challenging basic skills targets for every prison. We will raise standards and learner achievement by bringing developments in mainstream
  37W
  provision into prisons. From April 2002, we will be ensuring that provision meets national standards by introducing the Common Inspection Framework into prisons along with a national strategy to support continuous improvement in prisons.

  Football Hooligans
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives on policing Football League games in England. [49932]

  Mr. Denham
  Home Office advice is provided on the legislative framework for policing football matches. Responsibility for policing matches rests with the local police ground and match commanders. Operational guidance is co-ordinated by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals, by club, who purport to support English Nationwide and Premier League football teams are classified as football hooligans within Home Office categories. [49931]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not held centrally. Local police forces are responsible for monitoring and maintaining a record of the behaviour of football hooligans who associate themselves with domestic football clubs. Government, Association of Chief Police Officers and the National Criminal Intelligence Service no longer apply hooligan categories to individuals involved in football disorder. This has been replaced by a more targeted, intelligence-led approach.

  Prisons (Education)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to improve reading and writing skills of those in prison. [48912]

  Beverley Hughes
  One of the immediate objectives of the Prisoners' Learning and Skills Unit is to increase the proportion of prisoners leaving custody with acceptable literacy and numeracy skills to help them resettle into the community and gain employment on release. The most recent basic skills Level 2 data shows that the Prison Service has achieved 14,400 qualifications in 2001–02, which is 80 per cent. of the final target. We are taking action to improve reading and writing by running basic skills pathfinder projects in seven prisons as part of a wider national project to pilot new national tests and standards, and we are developing innovative approaches to the delivery of basic skills which include using popular subjects, such as drama, art and physical education.

  Passports
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why full 10-year passports are the only form of passport available. [48015]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The 10-year passport is the international standard agreed with the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The United Kingdom Passport Service also issues passports valid for five years to children aged under 16. The one-year British
  38W
  Visitors Passport was discontinued in 1995 because it was a less secure document and was not widely accepted for travel outside Western Europe.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ministerial Private Offices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the running costs were of(a) her Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff and (b) her Department in each year from May 1997 to the nearest date for which the information is available. [41037]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Appropriation accounts published by my Department for 1997–98, 1998&99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 show total running costs for my Department and its agencies of £398 million, £419 million, £450 million and £484 million respectively.

  Of these running costs the amounts spent on Ministers' private offices were:

  £3.8 million (1997–98) of which staff costs totalled £2.27 million.

  £4.2 million (1998–99) of which staff costs totalled £2.26 million.

  £3.4 million (1999–2000) of which staff costs totalled £1.94 million.

  £3.6 million (2000–01) of which staff costs totalled £2.08 million.

  Complete data are not yet available for 2001–02.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how much was spent by Ministers in her Department on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for entertainment purposes in each of the last five years; [47053]

  (2) how much was spent by departmental special advisers on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for official entertainment purposes in each of the last five years. [46846]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The total cost of entertainment—including food, alcohol and non-alcoholic drink for each of the last five years is as follows. These figures combine total costs for Ministers' offices and special advisers.

  Financial year

  Total (£)

  1997–98

  13,339

  1998–99

  23,088

  1999–2000

  18,202

  2000–01

  16,319

  Complete data are not yet available for 2001–02.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 25 to 26 March; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [50859]
  39W
  Mr. Alexander
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 379W.

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason no devolved Administration Minister attended the 2417 European Union Council of Ministers (Research) meeting on 11 March; which suggestions and matters of concern from the Scottish Executive were raised in their absence by the UK Government delegation; and what information and evidence was provided by her Department to enable effective post-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [51730]

  Ms Hewitt
  There was no requirement for a devolved Administration Minister to attend the Council of Ministers research meeting on 11 March. No suggestions or matters of concern from the Scottish Executive were raised in their absence by the UK Government delegation. In developing the UK Government's position on European research issues, the Office of Science and Technology regularly consults the devolved Administrations. It is the responsibility of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Executive's involvement in EU Council meetings. These arrangements are a matter for the Committee and the Scottish Executive. My Department provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process.

  Post Office Network
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) warrants and (b) cheques for each benefit were cashed in the post office network in each year since 1997. [51008]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: This is a matter which falls within the day to day responsibility of Consignia and I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the sub-post offices which have closed since May 1997, indicating for each(a) whether it is rural or urban, (b) whether it is in an area of deprivation and (c) the distance to and name of the nearest sub-post office to that which closed. [51007]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: This is a matter that falls within the day to day responsibility of Consignia and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Bank Holidays (Payment)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of employees who do not receive payment for bank holidays. [51379]

  Alan Johnson
  The Autumn 2001 Labour Force Survey indicates that 17 per cent. of workers are not paid for bank holidays.

  SEEDA
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether SEEDA has undertaken an audit of the infrastructure needs of the communities of the North Kent Coast, with particular reference to the constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. [50626]

  Alan Johnson
  SEEDA has funded the preparation of an Area Investment Framework for the Thames Gateway in north Kent. This covers includes Sittingbourne and Sheppey at the eastern end of the area. The work includes an audit of infrastructure needs. The Area Investment Framework will be launched at a conference held in Gravesend on 23 April, and thereafter will be carried forward by the Thames Gateway Kent Partnership.

  Radioactive Waste Research
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the priorities in respect of radioactive waste research set out in the European Corn mission's Multi-Annual Framework Programme for Research, COM (2001) 94 Final. [49493]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are playing an active role in the negotiations on the content and priorities of the Multi-Annual Framework Programme 2002–06 of the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) for research and training, in order to ensure that it reflects UK priorities as far as possible. Radioactive waste research at an EU level will complement research in the UK into the wider range of waste management options described in the consultation document "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" issued in September last year.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  HSE
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what technical support contracts were awarded by the Health and Safety Executive between 1 January and 31 December 1999. [51439]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 983W, on HSE, what technical support services were provided by each of the suppliers referred to in annexe 1 under the framework agreement. [51447]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what public service agreement targets were due to be met by his Department by 31 March; how many of these have been met; and if he will make a statement. [50909]
  41W
  Dr. Whitehead
  Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Department's 2002 Departmental Report.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people employed by the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible under the New Deal for Young People in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseeker's allowance or other benefits. [49601]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information on the New Deal programmes is not collected centrally for non-departmental public bodies and therefore this is a matter for individual NDPBs.

  Foreign Seafarers
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure the enforcement and application of international conventions covering pay, conditions, welfare, social security and other rights of foreign seafarers on UK ships. [50575]

  Mr. Jamieson
  International conventions are applied to UK and foreign seafarers alike on UK ships, in line with our understanding of the requirements of those conventions and they are enforced accordingly. Social security issues are, however, a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target to make 1 million more buildings cheaper to keep warm through the installation of energy efficient measures by 31 March will be met. [47219]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Department's 2002 departmental report.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target to increase the number of passenger miles travelled on national railways by 15 per cent. by 2001–02 will be met. [47264]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 April 2002, c. 90–91W]: Information about progress on this PSA will not be published in the Department's annual report. We expect the final outturn figures to show growth of about 12 per cent. Following the accident at Hatfield there was a 5 per cent. decline in passenger kilometres, which has only recently been recovered. The passenger kilometre figures for 2001–02 will be published by the Strategic Rail Authority in "National Rail Trends" on 6 June.

  Use Classes/Temporary Use Provisions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what steps he plans to take to take account of the views of local authorities, other organisations and individuals who have requested copies of his Department's consultation paper on possible changes to the Use Classes Order and Temporary Uses Provisions but to whom his Department has been unable to supply copies; [51597]

  (2) how many copies of his Department's consultation document on possible changes to the Use Classes Order and Temporary Uses Provisions were (a) printed, (b) distributed by his Department to its list of consultees and (c) kept by his Department for distribution on request to interested organisations and members of the public; [51598]

  (3) when his Department ran out of copies for distribution of its consultation document on possible changes to the Use Classes Order and Temporary Uses Provisions; [51599]

  (4) many requests have been made to his Department for copies of the consultation paper on possible changes to the Use Classes Order and Temporary Uses Provisions; how many of those requests were refused because the Department had no copies in stock; and if he will make a statement. [51600]

  Ms Keeble
  Our consultation paper on possible changes to the Use Classes Order and Temporary Use Provisions was published on 24 January 2002. Initially, a total of 3,519 copies of the consultation paper were printed. Of these, 2,125 were distributed by my Department to listed consultees. 1,300 were allocated for distribution on request to interested organisations and members of the public.

  Approximately 540 orders have been taken. Since the initial stock of documents ran out on 15 March, an additional 66 orders have been taken. Another 500 copies of the paper have been printed to fulfil these orders and to accommodate further orders.

  In addition to the paper copies of the consultation paper, it has been available on our website at www.dtlr.gov.uk since 24 January.

  Following the end of the consultation period on 24 April 2002, we shall consider the views of all those who have responded before making any decisions on the future composition of the Use Classes Order and temporary use provisions.

  Rough Sleeping
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 734W, on rough sleeping, if he will list those local strategies for which his Department has committed funding for 2002–03, and the relevant criteria for those strategies. [51740]

  Ms Keeble
  All local housing authorities in England have been given the opportunity to bid for revenue funding from 1 July 2002 until 31 March 2003 to support their homelessness strategies. The Government is interested in supporting strategies that are forward
  43W
  thinking, reflect the themes in the DTLR report "More than a roof', bring innovation to preventing homelessness and seek to achieve best practice.

  Current funding arrangements prevail until June 2002 to give the Homelessness Directorate an opportunity to fully assess local authority strategies and bids.

  A copy of the guidance on bidding for homelessness strategies has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Garden Hedges
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce proposals to give local authorities the power to intervene in neighbour disputes about overgrown garden hedges. [51538]

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

  Windows
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research the Government have commissioned into alternative glass suppliers that will meet the criteria set under S.I. 440. [51434]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: The Department has not commissioned research into alternative glass suppliers. However through contacts with glass manufacturers the Department has been informed that there are at least three companies supplying types of glass in the UK that enable window manufacturers to achieve the technical performance standards of Part L of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/2531) as amended by the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (S.1. 2001/3335).

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if there will be exemptions for listed buildings where the design of windows could make it difficult to comply with the regulations under S.I. 440. [51437]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: S.I. 2002/440 does not set any technical standards. It enables self-certification by prescribed persons for certain types of building work. With regard to windows, S.I. 2002/440 introduces a new Building Regulation that enables members of the Fenestration Self-Assessment (FENSA) Scheme to self-certify their installation work complies with the applicable technical requirements. FENSA members may certify that work consisting only of the installation, as a replacement, of a window, rooflight, roof window or door in an existing building complies with regulation 4 of the Building Regulations. This regulation requires that the work complies with the applicable requirements of Schedule 1 of those regulations (S.I. 2000/2531, as amended by S.I. 2001/3335).

  For building work comprising replacing windows guidance on compliance with the Building Regulations is given in Approved Documents L 1 and L2. This includes guidance on what is reasonable provision for listed buildings. In addition to this, my Department has been working closely with English Heritage on a new
  44W
  publication advising on making reasonable energy efficiency provisions in conservation work. The publication is aimed at building control inspectors as well as builders, and I understand it will be published soon.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total estimated compliance costs are to(a) local authorities, (b) builders of new homes and (c) all installations of new windows in existing houses of Statutory Instrument No. 440 Regulation 16A; and what the average individual cost will be of applying for building regulation permission to comply with S.I. 440. [51431]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: In the regulatory impact analysis we undertook prior to laying the regulations, we considered that there would be no cost to local authorities from the introduction of S.I. 2002–440, as the provisions effectively relieve them of the burden of enforcement through building control. The builders of new homes will similarly not face a cost as the provisions deal solely with the installation of windows, and gas, solid fuel and oil-fired appliances, and plumbing in existing buildings. The cost for all installations of new windows in existing buildings through the need for installers to obtain membership of the fenestration self-assessment scheme was estimated at £1,715,000 against savings of £91,885,000 in the first year There will be no cost for applying for building regulation permission, as none of those registered with these schemes is required to give a building notice and pay a fee, in relation to carrying out work for which they are registered, and which is permitted not to be notified in the circumstances prescribed in the S.I.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what enforcement measures will be taken against those who do not comply with S.I. 440. [51432]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: The only offence created by S.I. 440 would be the failure of a person registered with the fenestration self-assessment scheme, not more than 10 days after the building work has been completed, to give a local authority a notice to that effect, or a certificate as evidence that the requirements of regulations 4 and 7 of the Building Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000 No. 2531) have been satisfied. Local authorities can prosecute any person that contravenes any provision contained in the building regulations under Section 35 of the Building Act 1984.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Government will withdraw S.I. 440 and introduce a kitemark system in new windows for the glass and frames that would comply with specified 'U' values for insulation. [51435]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: No. S.I. 440 introduces a new building regulation that enables members of the fenestration self-assessment scheme to self-certify their installation work complies with the building regulations.

  There are British Standards Institution Kitemark quality assurance schemes for window products, but none currently covers overall window U-values. More importantly however, as manufactured product schemes,

  45W
  they cannot address the compliance of installation work with the technical and workmanship requirements of the building regulations.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures will be put in place to prevent sole suppliers of hard-coat thermal efficient glass abusing their position to impose unreasonable price increases under S.I. 440. [51433]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: The Department is aware of at least three companies supplying hard-coat thermally efficient glass in the UK. There are also several other international flat glass manufacturers that might seek to trade in the UK depending upon how the market develops. There is therefore no need to put in place anti-monopoly measures.

  Disabled Facilities Grant
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will raise the income thresholds for eligibility under the disabled facilities grant scheme. [51265]

  Ms Keeble
  The means test for disabled facilities grant makes a careful assessment of an applicant's resources and expenditure needs in order to calculate whether he is in a position to contribute towards any required adaptation to the property. The Government think that this test is fair and reasonable and because demand for DFG is very high it ensures that help goes to those most in need. Many of the detailed allowances used in the assessment are updated annually and SI 2002 No.530, which came into force on 1 April, makes the necessary changes which will be applicable for the year 2002–03.

  Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 977W, on housing, which local authorities were running a cash incentive scheme in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99,(c)1999– 2000 and (d) 2000– 01. [48709]

  Ms Keeble
  Details of the local authorities in England reporting expenditure on cash incentive scheme grants in these years have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment the Government have made of the number of new dwellings needed in London and the South-east to satisfy the need for affordable housing over the next 10 years. [50049]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government do not make national estimates of housing need, nor the dwellings required, as such approaches are unable to reflect local needs. Instead, local authorities, in conjunction with regional planning bodies, are expected to produce estimates of need and the dwellings required.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 977W, what figures his Department has collated
  46W
  on the sum each local authority in London running a cash incentive scheme in 2000–01 originally identified as being available to potential applicants. [48716]

  Ms Keeble
  The information provided by London authorities on their planned spend on Cash Incentive Schemes grants in 2000–01 is shown in the table.

  Planned programmes for cash incentive scheme in London, 2000–01

  £000

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  Barnet

  619

  Bexley

  0

  Brent

  0

  Bromley

  0

  Camden

  1,992

  City of London

  0

  Croydon

  1,410

  Ealing

  0

  Enfield

  1,283

  Greenwich

  0

  Hackney

  537

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  Haringey

  500

  Harrow

  290

  Havering

  185

  Hillingdon

  450

  Hounslow

  0

  Islington

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  400

  Lambeth

  0

  Lewisham

  300

  Merton

  150

  Newham

  0

  Redbridge

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  58

  Southwark

  0

  Sutton

  200

  Tower Hamlets

  500

  Waltham Forest

  1,222

  Wandsworth

  750

  Westminster

  400

  Source:

  Housing Investment Programme returns submitted by authorities in July 2000

  Right to Buy
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) published on the right to buy scheme since I May 1997. [49914]

  Ms Keeble
  Three research projects have been commissioned:

  (i) The impact of the February 1999 changes to limits on Right to Buy discounts.

  (ii) Exploitation of the Right to Buy scheme by companies.

  (iii) A review of the system for valuing properties for Right to Buy purposes.

  Results from these projects will be made publicly available when the work is completed.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has collated on the activities of
  47W
  commercial property companies offering local authority tenants a cash incentive to exercise the right to buy their home. [50917]

  Ms Keeble
  We are aware of anecdotal evidence of a number of abuses of the RTB by companies, particularly in London. We have commissioned research into what is happening, including the extent and type of such 'abuses' and the effect on the housing market. The results will be made publicly available when the work is completed.

  Housing Stock Transfer
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many units of housing stock have been transferred from local authority control to(a) housing associations and (b) similar bodies in each of the last five years; and how many ballots have taken place over that period of local authority tenants in which they have failed to agree a transfer. [51658]

  Ms Keeble
  The table shows the number of dwellings transferred from local authority ownership to housing associations in each of the most recent five financial years. Also shown for each of these years is the number of ballots in which tenants have not supported the transfer proposal.

  Financial year

  Dwellings transferred

  Negative ballots

  1997–98

  32,982

  2

  1998–99

  73,900

  5

  1999–2000

  97,385

  4

  2000–01

  134,219

  4

  2001–02

  35,390

  5

  The Secretary of State will not normally give his consent to the transfer of tenanted local authority dwellings to organisations other than registered social landlords.

  Fire College, Gloucestershire
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in relation to the fire college at Morton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, when he received the report of the internal auditors investigation into financial irregularities; what the results of that report were; if he will publish it; and what action he is taking. [51226]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There are a number of matters outstanding and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage. The final report will fall within various exemptions of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information including that relating to law enforcement and legal proceedings. It would therefore be inappropriate to disclose the contents.

  Arson
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 675W, on the Fire Service, if he will place in the Library the criteria used by the Arson Control Forum to assess bids from local fire authorities for arson reduction initiatives; [50988]
  48W
  (2) pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2002, Official Report, column 675W, on awards made by the Arson Control Forum, if he will place in the Library the guidance provided to local fire authorities when bidding for funding from the Arson Control Forum. [50902]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The guidance to local fire authorities and the criteria used by the Arson Control Forum to assess their bids were set out in a letter to potential bidders from the chairman of the Arson Control Forum, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Fire Service, Graham Meldrum, dated 6 November 2001. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Libraries of the House today.

  Telecommunication Masts
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers he has to intervene in decisions on the installation of a telecommunication mast in a residential area once the local council authority has given permission for the installation of the equipment; and if he will make a statement. [50861]

  Ms Keeble
  Local planning authorities have powers under section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to make orders to revoke or modify a planning permission, prior to it being implemented, where they consider it expedient to do so. If an order is opposed, it has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State before it can take effect.

  The Secretary of State also has powers, under section 100 of the Act, to revoke a planning permission granted by a local planning authority. However, the Secretary of State will generally use this power only if the original decision is judged to be grossly wrong, so that damage is likely to be done to the wider public interest.

  Under section 102 of the Act, local planning authorities also have power to make an order, requiring that any use of land be discontinued or continued subject to conditions or that any buildings or works shall be altered or removed. Such an order will not take effect unless it is confirmed by the Secretary of State.

  Section 104 of the Act gives the Secretary of State powers to make discontinuance orders himself.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his Department's policy is on the siting of mobile phone masts; what recent discussions he has had on the siting of mobile phone masts; and if he will make a statement. [51460]

  Ms Keeble
  Current planning guidance on telecommunications is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 8 (revised) (PPG8).

  Our general policy is to facilitate the growth of telecommunications systems while protecting the environment.

  We attach considerable importance to keeping the numbers of telecommunication masts to the minimum consistent with the efficient operation of the network. We

  49W
  strongly encourage the sharing of masts and sites, where that represents the optimum environmental solution in a particular case, and the use of existing buildings and other structures to site new antennas. We also encourage the use of sympathetic design and camouflage.

  On 22 August 2001, following consultation, we significantly strengthened the planning arrangements for telecommunications development. We:
  strengthened public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below and for masts on buildings and structures so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission
  increased the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications from 28 and 42 days to a uniform 56 days
  underlined that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college
  increased fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.

  Local Government Pension Scheme
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish the conclusions of the review of the local government pension scheme announced in Local Government Pensions Committee Circular No. 106. [50883]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The conclusions of the stock-take exercise on the local government pension scheme are being considered. An announcement about the next steps will be made shortly. I can confirm that no regulatory changes are envisaged to the scheme benefit package.

  Council Tax Bills
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what requirements there are on councils with regard to the wording of council tax bills in respect of precepts by town and parish councils. [51243]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Council tax bills must show the billing authority's council tax and percentage change from last year for the dwelling in question, inclusive of any local precept for the area in which the dwelling is situated. The demand notice must also show separately either the total of any local precept or the per dwelling amount of any local precept, and the name of the local precepting authority. These requirements are set out in Schedule 1 to the Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Demand Notices) (England) Regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993–191).

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the total savings of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the(a) Ml/A1 Link Road, (b) A 1 (M), (c) A30/35, (d)M40, (e) A417/419, (f) A19, (g) A50, (h) A69 and (i) second Severn Crossing by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49271]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following figures show the savings estimated at the time of contract award.50W

  £ million

  Project

  Public sector comparator

  Winning DBFO bid

  Estimated saving

  M1-A1

  344

  232

  112

  A1(M)

  204

  154

  50

  A419/A417

  123

  112

  11

  A69

  57

  62

  (5)

  M40

  276

  182

  94

  A19

  177

  136

  41

  A50

  77

  67

  10

  A30/A35

  149

  148

  1

  Total

  1,407

  1,093

  314

  Note:

  Figures are net present values calculated at an 8 per cent. real discount rate. This was the rate used for assessing road projects at the time of contract award.

  I understand that the publicly and privately financed options for the second Severn Crossing were evenly matched.

  Road Designation
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his Department's definition is of(a) a trunk road and (b) a strategic route. [50763]

  Mr. Spellar
  The trunk road network is the national system of routes for through traffic. The Highways Agency manages this network in England on behalf of the Secretary of State. There is no definition of a strategic route but we identified a core network of nationally important trunk routes in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" published in July 1998.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the reasons why the A683 link to the M6 is designated a strategic routeway; and if he will list the factors which determined the designation of the M6 Link Road Scheme to Heysham a proposal of regional significance. [50677]

  Mr. Spellar
  The designation of the A683 as a strategic routeway and the M6 to Heysham Link as a route of regional significance was made by the North West Regional Assembly in its role as the Regional Planning Body.

  The designation process of roads as routes of Regional significance by the NWRA considered a number of factors, most specifically, the function of a particular route in terms of its strategic importance, status and type of traffic carried.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the reasons for and provide an analysis of the factors which led to the proposal to detrunk the A585. [50678]

  Mr. Spellar
  My noble Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)
  51W
  confirmed the routes in the core trunk road network in April 1999. The routes were identified following public consultation and taking the following factors into account:
  linking main centres of population and economic activity;
  accessing major ports, airports and rail intermodal terminals;
  joining the peripheral regions to the centre;
  providing key cross-border links to Scotland and Wales;
  classification as part of the UK Trans-European Road Network.

  A14
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the timetable is for improving the road safety of the A14 crossroads at Rookery. [50581]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Draft Orders for the A 14 Rookery Crossroads improvement scheme were published on 21 March 2002. Depending on the number and nature of any objections received in response to the publication of the draft Orders, a public inquiry may be necessary. Subject to the completion of the necessary statutory procedures work on the scheme is expected to start in 2004–05 and be completed in 2005–06.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions the Government have had with the transport industry on concessionary travel for those under 18 who are(a) in full time education and (b) unemployed. [51297]

  Ms Keeble
  In recent months officials from both the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Social Exclusion Unit have participated in discussions held by the Commission for Integrated Transport involving the transport industry. These discussions have covered a number of issues including concessionary fares for those under 18. Both the SEU and CfIT will report later this year.

  Free travel is provided under the education acts for school children living more than the statutory walking distances from school. Separately, school age children are often allowed half-fare travel, either funded by local authorities or by transport operators on a commercial basis—usually on all journeys they make, not just to and from school or college. Many transport operators offer discounted fares to "Jobseekers". In addition, the Department for Education and Skills is developing the Connexions Card which will offer a range of commercial discounts for all 16–19 year olds. The card will be capable of carrying existing travel concessions and is expected to be available nationally from autumn 2002.

  Scotrail (Industrial Dispute)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last had discussions with the Scottish Executive regarding the industrial dispute by employees of Scotrail; and what the outcome of these discussions was. [46481]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers have regular discussions with the Scottish Executive on rail related issues.

  Railways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress towards upgrading the South Central network; and in what timeframe work will be completed. [49839]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Theresa May) on Thursday 18 April 2002,Official Report, columns 1103W–1104W. I expect the Strategic Rail Authority to be able to sign a new franchise agreement with GoVia later this year.

  Rail Performance
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), of 26 March 2001,Official Report, column 959W, on rail performance measures, when he intends to publish the benchmarks to which he refers; if he will list the benchmarks published to date; and by whom and how these benchmarks will be measured. [51019]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The benchmarks are the figures published on 18 February 2002 (reliability & punctuality, and safety) and 18 March (quality), the sources for which were specified at the time.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his reply of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 664W, on the Strategic Rail Authority, if he will list the (a) processes and (b) outcomes to which he refers. 151020]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Each Multi Modal Study will have a separate set of outcomes, and processes, which may involve the Strategic Rail Authority, some of which they will be required to implement.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what advice his Department received from(a) SwiftRail and (b) Network Rail about the amount of time needed to conclude a bid and end the Railtrack administration. [49867]

  Mr. Jamieson
  SwiftRail has said publicly that the process envisaged by the administrator for transferring Railtrack out of administration could be prolonged. Network Rail said at the time of making a bid for Railtrack plc that, if accepted, Railtrack could be released from administration by the end of July. This is a very challenging timetable.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on how many occasions in the last six months there has been a significant computer failure at National Air Traffic
  53W
  Services leading to the disruption of aircraft movement in UK airspace; what action he is taking to prevent such failures; and if he will make a statement. [49000]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: This is an operational matter for NATS. I understand the position to be as follows.

  There have been two occasions in the last six months, on 27 March and 10 April, when aircraft movements in UK airspace have been disrupted by unplanned computer stoppages. Both events occurred at West Drayton as a result of a software problem associated with an unusual set of circumstances connected with flight data.

  NATS is conducting a full inquiry into the incidents, to establish whether further adjustments are required to ensure the long term robustness of the system.

  Apart from these two incidents, NATS has experienced no significant computer failures in the last six months. Notwithstanding the incident on 27 March, the Flight Data Processing System at West Drayton achieved 99.6 per cent. availability in the year ended 31 March.

  Pilotage
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 671W, on pilotage, when he will place a copy of the report in the Library; and what monitoring of the new arrangements has been conducted by his Department. [51449]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on 16 April 2002,Official Report, columns 803–04W.

  Port Marine Safety Code
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the statutory harbour authorities in the UK broken down by(a) companies, (b) local authorities and (c) trusts; which authorities had completed implementation of the port marine safety code by 31 December 2001; and what steps he is taking to ensure full compliance. [51440]

  Mr. Jamieson
  To date, the following harbour authorities have told my Department that they have completed implementation of the Port Marine Safety Code:

  (a) Company Ports

  Associated British Ports:

  Ayr

  Barrow

  Barry

  Cardiff

  Fleetwood

  Garston

  Goole

  Grimsby

  Hull

  Immingham

  54W

  Ipswich

  King's Lynn

  Lowestoft

  Newport (Gwent)

  Plymouth

  Port Talbot

  Silloth

  Southampton

  Swansea

  Teignmouth

  Troon

  Whitby

  Boston

  Bristol

  Clydeport

  Forth Ports Ltd:

  Dundee

  Forth

  Tilbury

  Hutchison Ports:

  Felixstowe

  Harwich International

  Larne

  Mersey Docks & Harbour Company:

  Heysham

  Liverpool

  Medway

  Portland Port

  Stena Line Ports:

  Fishguard

  Folkestone

  Holyhead

  Tees and Hartlepool

  Warrenpoint

  (b) Local Authority Ports

  Aberdeenshire Council:

  Macduff

  Anglesey County Council:

  Amlwch

  Bristol City Docks

  Carrick District Council:

  Truro

  Cumbria County Council:

  Workington

  Fenland District Council:

  Wisbech

  Fife Council

  Hampshire County Council:

  River Hamble Harbour Authority

  Moray Council:

  Buckie

  Burghead

  Cullen

  Findochty

  Hopeman

  Portknockie

  Penwith District Council:

  Penzance

  Portsmouth

  55W

  Scarborough Borough Council:

  Scarborough

  Whitby

  Shetland Islands Council:

  Lerwick

  Scalloway

  Sullom Voe

  South Hams District Council:

  Salcombe

  Sunderland

  Thanet District Council:

  Broadstairs

  Margate

  Ramsgate

  Torbay Council:

  Brixham

  Paignton

  Torquay

  Torridge District Council:

  Bideford

  West Somerset District Council:

  Minehead

  Watchet

  Weymouth and Portland Borough Council

  (c) Trust Ports

  Aberdeen Harbour Board

  Belfast Harbour Commission

  Berwick Harbour Commission

  Bridlington Pier and Harbour Commission

  Brightlingsea Harbour Commission

  Caernarfon Harbour Trust

  Carlingford Lough Commission

  Chichester Harbour Conservancy

  Cromarty Firth Port Authority

  Dover Harbour Board

  Falmouth Harbour Commission

  Fowey Harbour Commissioners

  Fraserburgh Harbour Commission

  Gloucester Harbour Trustees

  Great Yarmouth Port Authority

  Harwich Haven Authority

  Inverness Harbour Trust

  King's Lynn Conservancy Board

  Lancaster Port Commission

  Langstone Harbour Board

  Lerwick Port Authority

  Londonderry Port

  Lymington Harbour Commission

  Milford Haven Port Authority

  Montrose Port Authority

  Neath Harbour Commission

  Newlyn Pier and Harbour Commission

  56W

  Newport (Gwent) Harbour Commission

  Padstow Harbour Commission

  Peterhead Bay Authority

  Peterhead Harbour Trust

  Poole Harbour Commission

  Port of London Authority

  Port of Plymouth

  Cattewater Harbour Commission

  Shoreham Port Authority

  Stornoway Pier and Harbour Commission

  Teignmouth Harbour Commission

  Tyne Port Authority

  Warkworth Harbour Commission

  Wells Harbour Commission

  Whitehaven Harbour Commission

  Wick Harbour Trust

  Yarmouth (Isle of Wight) Harbour Commission

  (d) Other public sector ports

  British Waterways Board:

  Caledonian and Crinan canals

  London Docklands

  River Ouse

  Sharpness Docks

  Environment Agency:

  Rye Harbour.

  My officials are corresponding with, and visiting, a number of harbour authorities that have significant responsibilities for marine safety if they have not reported compliance with the code.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 671W, on marine and port safety, what subjects were discussed at the two exchanges of correspondence with the acting chairman; and if he will place copies of these exchanges in the Library. [51448]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has now written on three occasions to the acting Chairman of Humber Pilots Ltd. (HPL), on four subjects—(1) the circumstances in which HPL's contract with Associated British Ports was terminated and the former pilots' authorisations revoked; (2) the requirement in the Port Marine Safety Code for pilotage services to be covered by a contract; (3) the numbers of Humber pilots now and formerly authorised by the competent harbour authority, and their qualifications; (4) the records of incidents kept by the authority and HPL. Letters between the Department and its correspondents are treated in confidence unless the originator chooses to make them public.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent changes there have been in the(a) measurement of and (b) legal duties for the safety of navigation by harbour authorities; and what progress has been made towards implementation of the port marine safety code. [51441]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been no recent changes in the legal duties for the safety of navigation of harbour authorities. The port marine safety code makes clear that the duties and powers that harbour authorities already have are generally sufficient to enable them to maintain
  57W
  proper standards of port marine safety. The Department is undertaking a review during 2002 to assess how far the code has been implemented and what has so far been achieved.

  Port Developments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance his Department issues on how alternatives to port developments should be assessed where adverse environmental impacts are likely; what decisions have been taken on who is to carry out these assessments; and if he will make a statement. [51376]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 517W, in which I announced that the Department had issued a consultation paper concerned with the development of an appraisal framework for ports in the UK. The period for consultation ran until 5 April and we are now analysing the results. These will assist the Department in drawing up a guidance note for all those involved with port developments requiring some form of official approval, which we aim to issue later this year. It will address how alternatives are to be assessed.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what means his Department intends to measure port productivity and efficiency to establish what scope there is for improved use of existing facilities; and if he will make a statement. [51375]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our ports policy paper, "Modern Ports—A UK Policy", published in November 2000, recognised that it is important to have a clear overall picture of trends affecting the ports industry, and especially of the potential need for new port development. We said that the Government will consider with the industry and other interests how to benchmark port performance and best practice methods. We are discussing with the ports industry how this can be taken forward.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on 7 November 2001, Official Report, columns 296W-97W, in which I announced that the Department had issued a discussion paper, "Recent developments and prospects in UK container ports", which was aimed at promoting a better understanding of the ports and shipping business, and of the demands which are now causing pressure on capacity.

  National Flag Shipping
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that the UK takes advantage of EU state aid guidelines to encourage national flag shipping. [50574]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have introduced the tonnage tax, which has in the last two years contributed to a 61 per cent. increase in tonnage of the UK registered fleet. We have also extended and increased funding to the Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme, which subsidises the costs of seafarer training, and we are committed to extending the Crew Relief Costs Scheme 58W
  to cover European as well as more distant ports, when parliamentary time is available. We have already cleared the first two measures with the Commission to ensure that they comply with state aid guidelines, and will seek clearance for the third when appropriate.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the changes to(a) cost and (b) coverage of the proposed pension credit if the withdrawal rate of the savings credit were (i) 10 per cent., (ii) 22 per cent. and (iii) 25 per cent. [20296]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The Savings Credit is designed specifically to reward pensioners with low or modest second pensions or savings. Setting the Savings Credit rate at 60 per cent. strikes the right balance between affordability and the objective of helping pensioners at the lower end of the income scale. As illustrated in the table, below increasing the rate of the Savings Credit to 90 per cent. would require an additional £2 billion for a full year. It would also mean the Pension Credit would be payable to single pensioners with incomes over £300 per week (nearly £16,000 per year) and over £430 for pensioner couples (around £22,500).

  Additional expenditure required for Pension Credit for a full financial year

  Sayings credit rate (percentage)

  Change in costs (£ billion)

  Changes in number of benefit units entitled (000s)

  60

  0

  0

  75

  +0.6

  +800

  78

  +0.8

  +1,000

  90

  +2.0

  +2,200

  Notes:

  1. Costs are the additional expenditure required for Housing and Council Tax Benefits and Pension Credit.

  2. Numbers of benefit units relates to those entitled to Pension Credit.

  3. The estimates are for 2004–05 (the first full year in which Pension Credit will be payable) and are based on estimates published in the pre-Budget report.

  4. The estimates are for GB only and exclude persons residing in residential care and nursing homes.

  5. The estimates are based on the Department's Policy Simulation Model, using data from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) for 1999–2000.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of single pensioners entitled to the pension credit are expected to be in receipt of less than the full rate of the state basic pension on the inception of the pension credit scheme in October 2003; [47658]

  (2) what proportion of pensioner couples entitled to the pension credit are expected to be in receipt of less than the full rate of the state basic pension for a couple based on the husband's contribution record on the inception of the pension credit scheme in October 2003. [47659]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information is not available in the format requested.
  59W
  In total around 4.1 million pensioner households will be entitled to Pension Credit in 2003–04, of which around 1.2 million households contain a couple.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many appeal tribunals in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK have been adjourned as a result of the Tribunal of Commissioners decision in CSDLA/1019/99; [49006]

  (2) how many full sessions in (a) Scotland and (b) the UK have been adjourned as a result of the Tribunal of Commissioners decision in CSDLA/1019/99; [49007]

  (3) if medical members who would he disqualified by conflict of interest as judged by the Tribunal of Commissioners decision in CSDLA/1019/99 are still being allocated to sit on Appeal Tribunal hearings; and if he will make a statement; [49008]

  (4) what costs have been incurred owing to the cancellation of appeal tribunal hearings as a result of the Tribunal of Commissioners decision in CSDLA/1019/99; [49009]

  (5) how many medical members in (a) Scotland and
  (b) the UK of appeal tribunal hearings he estimates could be disqualified from hearings when the findings of CSDLA/1019/99 are applied. [49011]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Neil Ward, Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from N. D. Ward to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 18 April 2002:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent parliamentary questions on the subject of the Tribunal of Commissioners decision (CSDLA/1019/99). You asked:
  how many appeal tribunals in (a) Scotland and (b) the UK have been adjourned as a result (49006);
  how many full sessions in (a) Scotland and (b) the UK have been adjourned as a result (49007);
  what costs have been incurred owing to the cancellation of appeal tribunal hearings as a result (49009);
  if medical members who would be disqualified by conflict of interest as judged by the decision are still being allocated to sit on Appeal Tribunal hearings (49008); and
  how many medical members in (a) Scotland and (b) the UK of appeal tribunal hearings he estimates could be disqualified from hearings when the findings of CSDLA/1019/99 are applied (49011).

  The jurisdiction of appeal tribunal administration by the Appeals Service extends to Great Britain only.

  Information on the number of appeal tribunals, and full sessions, adjourned as a result of the Tribunal of Commissioners decision, and the costs, is unavailable.

  The President of Appeal Tribunals has considered carefully the impact of the above decision. The decision is currently the subject of an appeal to the Court of Session. In the meantime, all medically qualified panel members are being offered hearings.

  There are currently 133 fee paid medically qualified panel members in Scotland, of whom 28 also carry out work for Schlumbergersema/Nestor Disability Analysis. For Great Britain, the figures are 856 and 136 respectively.

  I hope this is helpful.
  60W
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, when an Appeal Tribunal is adjourned, what costs have to be met for personnel and services; and what these have amounted to on average in the last year. [49012]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Neil Ward, chief executive of the Appeals Service. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from N. D. Ward to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 18 April 2002:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question regarding what costs have to be met for personnel and services, as a result of adjourned appeal tribunals; and what these have amounted to on average in the last year.
  The costs may include administrative costs for staff and venues as well as those of panel members and travelling expenses for the appellant. Information regarding the specific costs of adjourned tribunals is unavailable. However, the average cost of an appeal cleared by an appeal tribunal is £155 (excluding first tier agency costs). An appeal may be cleared at the first hearing, or after one or more adjournments.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Mark Preedy
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will ensure that officials in her Department examine the case of Mr. Mark Preedy. [46298]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Bill Wiggin, dated April 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
  You ask if the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will ensure that officials in his Department will examine the case of Mr. Mark Preedy.
  As individual cases are a confidential matter I have written to you separately concerning Mr. Preedy.

  State Pension
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people above state pension age have(a) reduced entitlement to the basic state pension and (b) no entitlement at all to a basic state pension. [45911]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are around 1.46 million people in Great Britain with a reduced entitlement to the Basic State Pension and around 360,000 with no entitlement at all.

  The Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) was introduced in April 1999 to provide a new higher income below which pensioners with little or no savings should not fall. From April 2002 no pensioner has to get by on less than £98.15 a week under MIG (£149.80 for couples). Over two million pensioners nationally benefit from this measure.

  Source:

  Administrative Data September 2001 and ONS mid 2000 Population Estimates.
  61W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people failed to claim their state pension within three months of reaching state pension age; what the total amount of state pension left unclaimed was in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [47585]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: There is no requirement to claim retirement pension at state pension age.

  Contributory Pension Schemes
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are(a) active members, (b) deferred members and (c) retired members of employers' contributory pension schemes. [46922]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information is not available on the number of deferred or retired members of employer contributory schemes (that is, a scheme where there is an employee contribution—"contributory scheme"). Information from the Government Actuary's survey of Occupational Pension Schemes (1995) shows 8.9 million active members in contributory schemes. In addition, it is estimated that there are 1.6 million active members of Group Personal Pension schemes (where the employee makes a contribution) and 1.5 million where the employer makes a contribution in addition to the employee.

  Information is available on the membership profile of occupational pension schemes (both contributory and non-contributory):

  Occupational pension membership 1999–2000

  Members

  Million

  Active

  10.5

  Retired

  6.2

  Deferred

  7.3

  Notes:

  1. The information on active members and retired members (ie those in receipt of an occupational pension) is drawn from the Family Resources Survey 1999–2000.

  2. The number of deferred members is estimated from the difference between active/retired members and total scheme membership. This estimate is subject to a degree of error due to the differing data sources used.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the policy of his Department is regarding recruitment and employment of people over 55; [48703]

  (2) what the policy of the Benefits Office is regarding the employment and recruitment of people over 55. [48704]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: The Department for Work and Pensions is committed to achieving equality of opportunity and diversity. All applicants and employees are treated fairly to enable them to develop and fulfil their potential, valuing the contribution each person can make to the organisation. Vacancies other than those for positions in the Senior Civil Service are open to everyone up to the age of 65 and a person's age is not taken into account at any stage of the selection process.
  62W
  At present the normal retirement age for staff in the Senior Civil Service is set by the Cabinet Office at 60, although there is the option to retain members beyond the age of 60 if it is judged to be in the public interest and the Department is satisfied about the fitness and efficiency of the individual to carry out his or her duties.

  We are committed to ending age discriminatory practices and Government Ministers, through the Cabinet Office, are actively working towards removing the current barriers for members of the Senior Civil Service.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost in 2002–03 of increasing the weekly basic state retirement pension for couples by(a) £8 for those where the head is aged up to 74 years, (b) £18 for those where the head is aged between 75 and 79 years and (c) £28 for those where the head is aged 80 years and over. [50882]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available.

  Complaints
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints were registered against his Department and its predecessor Departments in(a) 1990 to 1996 and (b) 1997 to 2002; how many are current; and what proportion were (i) taken up and (ii) upheld by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in those periods. [51219]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: The information requested is not available.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many members of staff at his Department are justices of the peace; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become justices of the peace. [44554]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information on the members of staff who are justices of the peace is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) requires employers to allow their staff reasonable time off for public duties. The civil service code (para 9.2.5) requires Departments and agencies to allow time off for attending these duties. Responsibility for the decision-making, in relation to attendance, for such activities has been delegated to local managers within the Department.

  Departmental Groups
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by his Department since May 1997; what their membership is; and what reports they (i) have published and (ii) are preparing to publish. [28580]
  63W
  Mr. McCartney
  Departmental Ministers and officials consider many policy questions and issues on a routine and on-going basis and frequently seek the views of people external to the Department on a more or less

  Total number of members

  Task forces, ad hoc advisory and policy review groups

  Date Established

  Date reported/due to report

  Date wound up

  Ministers

  Civil Servants

  Wider public servants

  Voluntary/Charity

  Other in Private Sector

  Total

  Pension provision group

  September 1997

  'We all need pensions— The Prospectus for Pension Provision' June 1998. 'Responses to the Pensions Green Paper' March 1999 'A Commentary on the Pension Credit' March 2001

  Proposed March 2002

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  7

  Pension sharing consultation panel

  November 1997

  No reports.

  Proposed March 2002

  0

  0

  1

  2

  14

  17

  Ad hoc group of external stakeholders: Decision Making and Appeals

  February 1998

  No formal reports produced.

  April 2001

  0

  4

  0

  8

  0

  12

  Activities of managing life working group

  July 1998

  No reports have been published. Minutes of meetings are produced.

  0

  6

  0

  7

  0

  13

  Housing benefit simplification and improvement project

  September 1998

  No reports published.

  Mid 1999

  0

  18

  2

  0

  0

  20

  Modern service working group

  December 1998

  No plans to produce a report.

  —

  0

  5

  0

  7

  0

  12

  Statutory money purchase illustrations working party

  April 1999

  'Illustrations of Money Purchase Pensions' September 2000. Consultation paper summer 2001

  Proposed March 2002

  0

  2

  1

  0

  3

  6

  Member-nominated trustee working group

  June 1999

  Proposals in 'Member-Nominated Trustees and Directors: Consultation document' published October 1999.

  Proposed March 2002

  0

  2

  0

  0

  7

  9

  Stakeholder pensions core group

  July 1999

  No formal reports.

  December 2000

  0

  4

  1

  0

  19

  24

  Pension forecasting advisory group

  July 1999

  'Planning Your Future' published July 2000.

  March 2001

  0

  10

  0

  0

  8

  18

  Best practice guidelines working practice

  July 1999

  No formal report.

  November 2000

  0

  4

  1

  0

  7

  12

  Dual sensory impairment group

  September 1999

  No formal report.

  November 2000

  0

  4

  0

  4

  0

  8

  Benefits agency standards committee

  November 1999

  First annual report published September 2000.

  Proposed March 2002

  0

  2

  3

  1

  3

  9

  Older people—media images working group

  August 2000

  No report planned.

  March 2001

  0

  7

  0

  6

  1

  14

  Partnership against poverty

  March 2001

  No report as such, provides feedback to department after each meeting.

  —

  0

  6

  5

  10

  0

  21

  Jobcentre plus employers forum

  May 2001

  No formal report planned.

  —

  0

  2

  2

  0

  8

  12

  Jobcentre plus stakeholders forum

  May 2001

  No formal report planned.

  —

  0

  4

  2

  18

  0

  24

  The private pensions simplification (pickering) review

  September 2001

  Report due July 2002.

  —

  2

  5

  0

  0

  5

  12

  64W
  formal basis. The following table shows the task forces, ad hoc advisory and policy review groups with external members, which have been established since May 1997:
  65W

  Total number of members

  Task forces, ad hoc advisory and policy review groups

  Date Established

  Date reported/due to report

  Date wound up

  Ministers

  Civil Servants

  Wider public servants

  Volunrary/Charity

  Other in Private Sector

  Total

  The minimum funding requirement consultant panel

  September 2001

  No formal report planned.

  —

  0

  8

  0

  1

  12

  21

  Scottish partnership against poverty

  November 2001

  No formal report planned.

  —

  0

  11

  0

  7

  6

  24

  Ministerial approval

  Date

  Secretary of State approval

  PSL approval

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the longest period of time elapsed is between receiving(a) the administration fee and providing the information requested and (b) a request for information and providing the information requested, under the Data Protection Act 1998; [33455]

  (2) what administration fees are charged by the Department for information requests made under the Data Protection Act 1998; [33462]

  (3) what percentage of responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 the Department has completed (a) within 40 days of receipt of the £10 fee, (b) between 40 and 60 days of and (c) over 60 days after receiving the administration fee. [33469]

  Mr. McCartney
  Such information is available as follows.

  The longest period of time elapsed is between a request for information and providing the information requested is over 120 days.

  The Department currently only records elapsed time for clearing requests in periods of 20 days i.e. 40–60 days, 60–80 days. This information is only available for requests recorded from 24 October 2001.

  We do not charge an administration fee for information requests made under the Data Protection Act 1998.

  From 1 March 2000 to 23 October 2001 the Department has responded to 91.40 per cent. of requests within 40 days and 8.60 per cent. over 40 days.

  From 24 October 2001 to 31 December 2001 the Department has responded to 92.33 per cent. of requests within 40 days; 7.40 per cent. over 40 days and 27 per cent. over 60 days.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 have been completed(a) within 40 days, (b) between 40 and 60 days and (c) over 60 days after receiving the original letter; and how many are outstanding; [33571]

  (2) how many responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 the Department has completed (a) within 40 days of receipt of, (b) between 40 and 60 days of receiving and (c) over 60 days after receiving the £10 administration fee. [33564]
  66W
  Mr. McCartney
  From 1 March 2000 to 23 October 2001 the Department has responded to 5,604 within 40 days; 529 over 40 days and none over 60 days.

  From 24 October 2001 to 31 December 2001 the Department has responded to 989 within 40 days; 81 over 40 days and nine over 60 days.

  At 31 December 2001 there were 530 SARs outstanding throughout the Department.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many requests the Department has received under the Data Protection Act 1988 for(a) electronically held information and (b) paper documentation; [33583]

  (2) how many responses the Department has completed to requests for information made under the Data Protection Act 1998 for (a) electronically held information and (b) paper documentation. [33576]

  Mr. McCartney
  Between 1 March 2000, when the Data Protection Act came into force with respect to electronically held data, and 23 October 2001 the Department received and completed 6,825 subject access requests.

  The Act extended rights to clerical data on 24 October 2001 and since then (up to 31 December 2001) the Department has received 320 requests for clerical data only; 107 requests for electronic data only; and 652 requests for both clerical and electronic data.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the period of time elapsed is for the oldest outstanding request for information under the Data Protection Act 1998, since receipt of the(a) original request and (b) administration fee. [33449]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the average cost of processing each information request under the Data Protection Act 1998 in the last 12 months. [33439]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available.

SCOTLAND

  Appointments
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the public bodies are to which she has a right to make appointments since 1 July 1999; and when she will next make appointments to each of them. [47133]
  67W
  Mrs. Liddell
  One of my functions under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 is to appoint the Commissioners to the Boundary Commission for Scotland. I will be required to make two new appointments from 1 January 2003.

  Ferry Transport
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on devolving powers to the Scottish Executive on ferry transport. [47392]

  Mrs. Liddell
  An order under section 63 of the Scotland Act will shortly be laid before Parliament. Subject to approval, this order will devolve to Scottish Ministers a power to provide financial support for shipping services between the Highlands and Islands and Northern Ireland.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise; and what was discussed. [47651]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I meet representatives of a wide range of public and private sector bodies in a variety of circumstances, both formal and informal, and I shall continue to do so. Those discussions include the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise on matters relating to the Scottish economy.

  Friends of Scotland
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have registered as Friends of Scotland. [46973]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 169W.

  MSPs
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she will publish the result of her consultation on MSP members. [47649]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The consultation period ended on 29 March. I will now give careful consideration to all of the views expressed and will publish in due course a summary of the responses. I hope to be in a position to announce the Government's decision on this important matter soon.

  Shipping Services
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response she has received from the Scottish Executive to her consultation about transferring functions to the Scottish Ministers regarding financial assistance for shipping services which start or finish outside Scotland. [51397]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: The Scotland Office has held detailed discussions with the Scottish Executive on the proposed transfer of functions to Scottish Ministers regarding financial assistance to shipping services. An order under section 63 of the Scotland Act will shortly be laid before Parliament. Subject to approval, this order will devolve to Scottish
  68W
  Ministers a power to provide financial support for shipping services between the Highlands and Islands and Northern Ireland.

  Departmental Publicity
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the total real terms expenditure of her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity in each of the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year; and if she will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations. [36161]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999. Since that date the Department has spent the following on publicity:

  £

  July 1999 to March 2000

  21,289

  April 2000 to March 2001

  130,903

  April 2001 to date

  180,341

  2001–02 estimate

  180,341

  All of the expenditure was on advertising, with most of this related to election or electoral registration matters. No assessment has been made of the expenditure in real terms.

  Complaints
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints were registered against her Department and its predecessor Departments in(a) 1990 to 1996 and (b) 1997 to 2002; how many are current; and what proportion were (i) taken up and (ii) upheld by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in those periods. [51582]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since that date, no complaints have been registered against the Department.

  Details of complaints between 1990 and 1999 are contained in the annual reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. These reports were laid before Parliament and are available in the Library.

  Volunteers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of her staff in each of the past two years have been granted a day's paid leave to work as a volunteer; and if she will make a statement. [39740]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No staff in my Department have requested paid leave to work as a volunteer during the last two years.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the(a) percentage and number of rail journeys undertaken on first class tickets, (b) average cost of a first class journey by rail and (c) total cost of rail travel in each of the past four years broken down by grade of civil servant. [37499]
  69W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rail Journeys
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make it her policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in her Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40435]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Civil Service Management Code requires all Government Departments and agencies to ensure that employees use the most efficient and economic means of travel in the circumstances, taking into account any management benefit and the needs of staff with disabilities.

  Job Sharing
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are employed in her Department on a job share contract; and what percentage of vacant positions was advertised on this basis in the last 12 months. [35367]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in her Department. [41050]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department currently has four members of staff employed in a total of two job-share positions.

  Apart from a very small number of posts, where there are particular business requirements, all vacant positions are advertised as being available on a part-time, job share/split as well as on a full-time basis.

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in her Department's press office have received(a) termination and (b) redundancy payments in each of the last four years. [41088]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  Since that date, no staff in the Department's press office have received termination or redundancy payments.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what legal costs have been incurred by her Department in each of the last four years. [34350]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999. Since that time it has incurred the following legal costs in relation to my areas of responsibility:

  £

  Legal costs

  July 1999 to March 2000

  1,769

  April 2000 to March 2001

  5,487

  April 2001 to March 2002

  18,892

  These do not include the cost of in-house legal services but include payments made to other Departments for legal
  70W
  services. The figures are gross, do not include costs recovered or recoverable and do not include costs paid to third parties by way of damages or compensation.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if she will list the official visits to(a) Paris and (b) Brussels made by each Minister in her Department in 2001 and the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in her Department on the choice of mode of travel for such visits; [38146]

  (2) if she will list the official visits within the UK outside London made by each Minister in her Department in 2001, giving for each (a) the origin and destination and (b) the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in her Department on choice of mode of travel for official visits. [38182]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published in a similar form to previous years as soon as possible. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The additional information requested in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to visit the Baltic states. [45842]

  Mrs. Liddell
  It is my intention to visit the Baltic states in due course.

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General how many staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in each of the last four years. [36214]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in each of the last four years. [36213]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No official in my Department receives paid facility time on a full time basis to undertake trade union activities.

WALES

  Complaints
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many complaints were registered against his Department and its predecessor Departments in(a) 1990 to 1996 and (b) 1997 to 2002; how many are current; and what proportion were (i) taken up and (ii) upheld by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in those periods. [51583]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There is no central register of complaints.
  72W
  Since its establishment on 1 July 1999, the Parliamentary Ombudsman has investigated no complaints against the Wales Office. The Ombudsman's annual reports contain the following details of complaints against the former Welsh Office.

  Year

  New cases received

  Rejected or discontinued1

  Cases concluded

  Upheld in whole or in part

  1990–91

  9

  7

  0

  0

  1991–92

  9

  6

  2

  2

  1992–93

  12

  8

  4

  4

  1993–94

  12

  11

  0

  0

  1994–95

  25

  14

  2

  0

  1995–96

  15

  12

  9

  8

  1996–97

  16

  12

  0

  0

  1997–98

  12

  13

  3

  2

  1998–99

  17

  10

  5

  4

  1999–2000

  8

  19

  0

  0

  2000–01

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1 From 1999–2000, includes "Concluded without investigation"

  Note:

  Annual workload includes cases carried forward from previous years

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff have been employed by her Department in each of the last 10 years. [42454]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 295W.

  User Consultation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what new steps her Department took in 2001–02 to consult the users of its services about their wishes and expectations; and if she will publish the findings. [47310]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department continuously commissions tightly focused market research to help develop and evaluate advertising and publicity campaigns. This research will often focus on views of customers about its services.

  For example in 2001–02, campaigns where strategic communications research or creative development research have been commissioned include the drive to widen participation in Higher Education; the promotion of the relevance of science to teenagers, as part of Science Year, the child care recruitment campaign; the campaign to help those adults with basic skills gaps; and the promotion of foundation degrees and modern apprenticeships.

  It is seldom possible to publish the findings of this type of research as these projects test creative work commissioned from advertising agencies as part of the development of the publicity campaigns and are regarded as commercial-in-confidence. This research is subject to the usual strict rules that spending must represent good value for the taxpayer and must not be used for party political purposes.

  The Department also conducts research to help us understand the education, skills and communication needs of our customers. It has sampled and consulted on the views of teachers, parents and other groups affected by the Department's policies on specific issues. For example the project "Causes of truancy by pupils of compulsory school age" gathers the views of pupils, parents, school and LEA staff on the causes of truancy and what measures could be taken to address the issue. One of the aims is to examine the issue of absence that is condoned by parents. "A longitudinal study of factors contributing to variations in teacher effectiveness" will investigate the factors which contribute to the effectiveness of teachers at different stages of their career, working in a range of schools in different contexts, and how this changes over time. Part of this study is to track 300 teachers over three years measuring their effectiveness by pupil outcome measures and other qualitative techniques. Again it would not be possible to give details of every project without disproportionate costs.

  The Department is committed in particular to consulting its youngest customers and enthusiastically supports the Government's core principles on involving
  74W
  children and young people. We arranged a consultation day with pupils on 5 November 2001 on the Education White Paper and our consultation on the 14–19 Green Paper which started in February includes a young persons' document and events with young people. Most Connexions Partnerships are successfully involving young people in the design, delivery and evaluation of the service. The views of young people are also gathered through the millennium volunteers national and regional fora. We will build on these examples to promote consultation with children and young people across the Department's activities.

  The Department's website has details of its research programme from 1997 on http://www/dfes.gov.uk/research. Information about opinion polls, focus groups and other forms of research commissioned by the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally.

  New Schools
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans her Department has to build new(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in Lancashire. [48601]

  John Healey
  It is not the role of the Department to decide when and where to build new schools. Local Education Authorities (LEAs) have a duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places available for children in their area. To help identify where additional places are needed, LEAs are required to produce annually a locally agreed School Organisation Plan which sets the context for the provision of school places over a five year period. Where Authorities can demonstrate a need for additional places, they can apply for capital funding support from the Department in the form of a basic need allocation. Since 2000–01, Lancashire LEA has received basic need allocations in respect of 587 secondary school places. It is, however, for the LEA to decide how best to use these allocations in line with the locally agreed priorities identified in its Asset Management Plan. Any proposal to establish a new school would be made and decided locally.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new schools have been built in each of the local authorities of England in each of the last five years. [48608]

  John Healey
  We do not hold information in the form requested. Much capital funding support is allocated to local education authorities and schools on a formulaic basis. Records of how it is utilised for specific projects are held locally.

  Education Finance
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average amount spent per pupil was in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) sixth form colleges in (i) St. Helens, (ii) Liverpool, (iii) Manchester, (iv) London, (v) England and (vi) Scotland in (1) 1998, (2) 1999, (3) 2000, (4) 2001 and (5) the quarter to 31 March 2002. [48667]

  Mr. Timms
  The following table sets out the average amount spent per pupil in primary schools and per pupil in secondary schools. 1999–2000 is the latest year for which
  75W
  information is available. I shall write to my hon. Friend when the information for 2000–01 is to hand. The Department does not hold information on spending by sixth form colleges. My right hon. Friend is not responsible for expenditure in Scotland.

  Education expenditure per school pupil

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  342 St. Helens

  Pre primary/primary

  1,770

  2,030

  Secondary

  2,480

  2,650

  341 Liverpool

  Pre primary/primary

  1,970

  2,020

  Secondary

  2,580

  2,720

  352 Manchester

  Pre primary/primary

  1,860

  1,960

  Secondary

  2,670

  2,820

  London

  Pre primary/primary

  2,320

  2,450

  Secondary

  3,030

  3,050

  England

  Pre primary/primary

  1,960

  2,070

  Secondary

  2,550

  2,640

  Notes:

  1. All figures are in real terms (2000–01) prices, based on GDP deflators published by Treasury on 27 March 2002

  2. All figures are in £s rounded to the nearest £10.

  3. Expenditure data for 1999–2000 are taken from section 52 outturn statements completed by local education authorities and returned to DfES.

  4. Data for previous years are taken from DTLR's Revenue Outturn Returns.

  5. Pupil numbers used in calculating pupil figures are financial year averages, based on January Annual School Census returns.

  Emmanuel College, Gateshead
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils who gained entry to Emmanuel college in Gateshead LCS achieved level(a) 4, (b) 5 and (c) 6 in Key Stage 2 (i) maths, (ii) English and (iii) science SATs at primary school as a percentage of their year 7 intake for each of the years (A) 1999, (B) 2000 and (C) 2001. [48924]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not readily available. Analyses of this kind will be possible once proposals for a national pupil database are implemented.76W
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 28 January 2002, Official Report, columns 109–11W.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which Bills introduced by her Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses; and what plans she has for the future use of such clauses. [49628]

  Mr. Timms
  The current Education Bill is the only example of where such a provision has been included, through subsection (6) of clause 2 of the Bill. The need for future use of such clauses would be assessed during preparation for any future legislation.

  Sector Skills Councils
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings her Department has had with the sector skills councils since their inception. [49847]

  John Healey
  There are currently five Trailblazer SSCs covering the following sectors:Retail
  Environmental and Land Based Industries
  Apparel, Footwear and Textiles
  Audio Visual Industries
  Oil and Gas Extraction, Petroleum Refining and Marketing, and Chemicals Manufacturing and Processing.

  My Department holds regular meetings with the Trailblazer SSCs. Meetings have also been facilitated by my Department's officials between the Trailblazer SSCs and the devolved Administrations, other Government Departments, and other partner organisations.

  Meetings have also taken place between the Department and the potential sector skills councils.

  This regular dialogue will continue in order for the sector skills councils to achieve their aim of leading the skills and productivity drive in industry and business sectors which is recognised by employers. They will bring together employers, trade unions and professional bodies in working with Government to develop the skills to meet the demand from businesses in order to close the skills gaps between the UK and our competitors.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has for a sector skills council for the oil and gas industry. [50016]

  John Healey
  A sector skills council (SSC) for the oil and gas extraction, oil refining and processing and chemical manufacturing sector was licensed on 19 March. The SSC, known as Cogent, is one of five Trailblazer SSCs selected to demonstrate the importance of influential employer-led bodies in driving up skills and productivity in sectors. I look forward to Cogent making significant early progress in addressing the skills and productivity priorities for this sector.

  IT Contracts
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 257W, on IT contracts, whether the competition being run by Becta to accredit ICT suppliers for schools will take into account the ease for schools of changing between those suppliers. [50033]

  John Healey
  The Accredited Service Suppliers initiative will not put in place a framework contract and hence schools will create their own formal contract arrangements with suppliers. However, all Becta accredited NGfL service suppliers will be governed by a code of conduct, which will ensure that suppliers do not impose unreasonable terms and conditions on schools and other educational customers. Part of this code of conduct will cover arrangements for termination of contracts. Rigorous monitoring of accredited supplier performance will be undertaken by Becta and accreditation will be publicly withdrawn from suppliers who do not work within the code of conduct.

  Smart Card Technology
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the use of smart card technology in her Department and in the areas for which it is responsible; and what discussions she has had with private companies about the use of smart card technology within her Department. [50475]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: The Connexions card is a smart card designed to encourage young people to continue in learning beyond 16. Young people can collect points every time they attend a learning session, which can then be redeemed for a wide range of rewards and "money can't buy" opportunities—for example, going behind the scenes at a pop concert or attending a top sporting event. Cardholders will also receive on-the-spot discounts in a wide range of high street shops.

  The Department has developed the Connexions card through a public private partnership with Capita who are providing the technological and commercial infrastructure to support the initiative. The fact that the card and its infrastructure are smart means that it is capable of taking on more functions such as helping a school or local education authority validate the payment of education maintenance allowances or an e-purse for cashless catering.

  The card is currently being rolled out region by region and will be available across England from autumn 2002.

  Educational psychologists (full-time equivalent)

  In service

  LEA

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  FT vacancies 2001

  City of London

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.0

  Camden

  8.4

  7.5

  7.5

  10.9

  12.0

  0.0

  Greenwich

  16.0

  16.9

  15.9

  12.9

  14.5

  1.0

  Hackney

  11.0

  10.0

  10.5

  11.7

  12.5

  1.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6.5

  7.5

  9.3

  7.5

  5.9

  1.0

  Islington

  10.0

  13.0

  12.3

  14.1

  12.0

  0.0

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in each of the Inner London boroughs have school playing fields; and if she will list them. [50542]

  John Healey
  As part of the data collected for local education authorities' asset management plans, the Department has information on numbers of school playing fields. The Department is currently appraising the data with a view to publishing analysis later this year.

  City of Bradford Metropolitan Council
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the City of Bradford metropolitan council was invited to submit a bid for the latest round of PFI projects; when the bid was received; and on what date the Department's response was issued. [51040]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: A letter was sent by the Department for Education and Skills to all local education authorities (LEAs) in England on 31 July 2001, inviting PFI proposals expected to reach contract signature in 2003–04. The proposal from the City of Bradford metropolitan council was received on 17 December 2001. All LEAs which submitted proposals were notified of the outcome on 25 March 2002.

  Educational Psychologists
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the average waiting time between a child being referred by his school to an educational psychologist and the first consultation taking place has been in the last 12 months; [51053]

  (2) how many educational psychologists are employed (a) by each local education authority in England and Wales and (b) in total; what the equivalent figures were for the last five years; and if she will make a statement; [51055]

  (3) if she will make a statement about the recruitment and retention of educational psychologists; [51056]

  (4) what estimate she has made of the number of posts for educational psychologists in local education authorities in England and Wales that are unfilled. [51057]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: Information on waiting times for consultations with educational psychologists is not collected centrally. Recruitment and retention of educational psychologists are matters for local education authorities, as employers.

  The latest available information on the number of educational psychologists employed by local education authorities in England, and the number of unfilled posts, is given in the following table:
  79W

  Educational psychologists (full-time equivalent)

  In service

  LEA

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  FT vacancies 2001

  Kensington and Chelsea

  9.0

  10.0

  8.0

  8.0

  6.0

  0.0

  Lambeth

  13.3

  8.0

  10.7

  13.4

  15.1

  0.0

  Lewisham

  13.5

  13.5

  12.5

  12.5

  13.5

  0.0

  Southwark

  13.6

  11.1

  12.3

  12.3

  11.7

  2.0

  Tower Hamlets

  14.0

  29.6

  15.7

  15.3

  14.4

  0.0

  Wands worth

  11.2

  11.6

  10.7

  11.3

  11.0

  0.0

  City of Westminster

  10.0

  7.0

  7.0

  7.0

  9.4

  0.0

  Barking and Dagenham

  12.9

  10.9

  11.9

  14.0

  11.9

  3.0

  Barnet

  16.1

  15.5

  15.5

  14.4

  15.5

  1.0

  Bexley

  11.3

  10.0

  11.0

  10.6

  10.1

  0.0

  Brent

  11.6

  10.0

  9.4

  10.0

  11.0

  0.0

  Bromley

  11.5

  12.0

  12.0

  11.0

  11.5

  1.0

  Croydon

  10.4

  14.6

  13.9

  13.4

  9.6

  1.0

  Ealing

  12.8

  13.8

  23.8

  14.7

  13.7

  1.0

  Enfield

  15.0

  12.7

  17.6

  20.6

  19.2

  3.0

  Haringey

  14.8

  13.3

  15.0

  14.1

  11.6

  2.0

  Harrow

  11.0

  4.6

  8.7

  10.3

  10.9

  1.0

  Havering

  7.9

  9.6

  9.5

  9.5

  9.5

  0.0

  Hillingdon

  12.4

  13.8

  15.3

  14.2

  15.5

  0.0

  Hounslow

  9.5

  10.5

  10.0

  10.5

  10.5

  0.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  4.9

  6.9

  5.7

  6.8

  5.4

  1.0

  Merton

  6.5

  6.5

  6.5

  6.8

  9.6

  0.0

  Newham

  12.1

  12.8

  15.5

  19.0

  17.7

  4.0

  Redbridge

  8.1

  8.2

  10.0

  10.4

  7.4

  2.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  6.6

  7.6

  7.6

  7.1

  6.1

  1.0

  Sutton

  5.6

  5.0

  6.5

  8.9

  10.8

  0.0

  Waltham Forest

  13.0

  13.0

  13.0

  13.0

  8.3

  1.0

  Birmingham

  39.0

  40.1

  46.2

  22.6

  46.2

  0.0

  Coventry

  13.3

  12.8

  13.9

  14.5

  16.0

  0.0

  Dudley

  10.5

  10.5

  11.5

  7.7

  11.7

  5.0

  Sandwell

  14.0

  15.0

  14.0

  16.0

  15.0

  0.0

  Solihull

  9.4

  10.0

  9.5

  11.0

  9.5

  1.0

  Walsall

  10.5

  12.6

  11.8

  12.0

  10.6

  0.0

  Wolverhampton

  11.8

  12.8

  10.0

  13.0

  15.0

  0.0

  Knowsley

  8.8

  8.0

  9.0

  9.0

  9.0

  0.0

  Liverpool

  16.0

  16.0

  15.0

  15.0

  14.0

  0.0

  St. Helens

  6.0

  8.0

  7.0

  6.0

  8.1

  0.0

  Sefton

  10.0

  11.0

  10.6

  9.5

  13.6

  0.0

  Wirral

  14.0

  12.5

  13.7

  12.8

  12.1

  2.0

  Bolton

  8.4

  8.4

  8.4

  9.4

  9.4

  0.0

  Bury

  7.6

  7.2

  6.1

  8.0

  8.6

  0.0

  Manchester

  17.6

  20.9

  22.2

  17.8

  21.0

  0.0

  Oldham

  6.5

  7.5

  7.5

  8.5

  8.9

  0.0

  Rochdale

  8.3

  9.3

  9.3

  8.0

  9.3

  0.0

  Salford

  9.5

  8.3

  7.6

  11.2

  8.8

  3.0

  Stockport

  11.8

  10.6

  10.5

  11.2

  10.0

  0.0

  Tameside

  7.6

  9.6

  9.6

  9.6

  9.6

  0.0

  Trafford

  5.0

  5.0

  5.0

  4.4

  7.0

  0.0

  Wigan

  12.0

  11.8

  12.4

  12.4

  10.0

  2.0

  Barnsley

  4.0

  6.5

  6.9

  7.4

  7.9

  0.0

  Doncaster

  10.9

  11.9

  10.9

  10.9

  9.9

  2.0

  Rotherham

  11.5

  10.5

  8.3

  7.3

  9.1

  0.0

  Sheffield

  19.4

  20.9

  22.4

  23.4

  26.0

  0.0

  Bradford

  18.5

  19.2

  20.5

  21.7

  21.7

  0.0

  Calderdale

  8.4

  7.4

  7.4

  7.7

  8.8

  0.0

  Kirklees

  21.5

  22.5

  20.0

  22.8

  25.1

  3.0

  Leeds

  14.5

  17.0

  19.0

  21.5

  19.5

  2.0

  Wakefield

  10.0

  10.0

  11.0

  9.0

  9.3

  0.0

  Gateshead

  9.0

  9.5

  9.5

  9.5

  6.5

  0.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  14.4

  10.4

  14.8

  10.5

  8.6

  0.0

  North Tyneside

  6.6

  7.5

  5.7

  7.7

  9.0

  0.0

  South Tyneside

  6.0

  7.5

  5.0

  7.1

  6.5

  1.0

  Sunderland

  11.5

  11.5

  13.5

  15.9

  11.1

  0.0

  Isles of Scilly

  0.0

  0.1

  0.6

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  5.0

  5.0

  5.0

  8.5

  7.0

  0.0

  City of Bristol

  16.9

  14.3

  15.6

  19.2

  19.5

  0.0

  North Somerset

  7.9

  7.5

  9.0

  12.0

  10.5

  1.0

  South Gloucestershire

  7.3

  7.0

  8.8

  9.8

  11.4

  0.0

  Hartlepool

  3.2

  4.0

  4.0

  3.4

  2.4

  1.0

  Middlesbrough

  5.0

  7.0

  7.4

  7.0

  6.2

  0.0

  Redcar and Cleveland

  5.1

  4.9

  6.0

  6.0

  5.8

  2.0

  80W 81W

  Educational psychologists (full-time equivalent)

  In service

  LEA

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  FT vacancies 2001

  Stockton on Tees

  8.5

  5.1

  7.0

  6.0

  8.3

  0.0

  City of Kingston Upon Hull

  8.0

  8.3

  10.3

  10.3

  11.4

  10.0

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  8.0

  8.0

  8.0

  7.0

  9.0

  0.0

  North East Lincolnshire

  4.0

  5.0

  5.0

  5.6

  6.4

  0.0

  North Lincolnshire

  5.0

  5.0

  5.0

  4.5

  5.0

  0.0

  North Yorkshire

  13.1

  14.3

  15.8

  14.7

  14.5

  0.0

  York

  6.9

  6.9

  6.9

  7.8

  8.1

  0.0

  Former Bedfordshire

  16.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  6.0

  10.3

  10.3

  11.7

  1.0

  Luton

  —

  4.8

  5.3

  6.0

  7.0

  0.0

  Total former Bedfordshire area

  16.3

  10.8

  15.6

  16.3

  18.7

  1.0

  Former Buckinghamshire

  24.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  18.2

  19.7

  19.8

  18.6

  36.0

  Milton Keynes

  —

  10.0

  7.0

  10.0

  11.5

  0.0

  Total former Buckinghamshire area

  24.9

  28.2

  26.7

  29.8

  30.1

  36.0

  Former Derbyshire

  31.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  22.0

  20.6

  23.0

  20.7

  3.0

  Derby

  —

  9.0

  8.7

  10.9

  10.9

  0.0

  Total former Derbyshire area

  31.9

  31.0

  29.3

  33.9

  31.6

  3.0

  Former Dorset

  25.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  14.0

  13.0

  12.6

  12.7

  0.0

  Poole

  —

  5.5

  6.0

  4.5

  5.1

  1.0

  Bournemouth

  —

  4.0

  5.4

  6.0

  6.0

  0.0

  Total former Dorset area

  25.0

  23.5

  24.4

  23.1

  23.8

  1.0

  Former Durham

  23.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  16.0

  20.9

  20.6

  23.2

  0.0

  Darlington

  —

  4.0

  3.0

  4.0

  4.0

  0.0

  Total former Durham area

  23.4

  20.0

  23.9

  24.6

  27.2

  0.0

  Former East Sussex

  18.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  —

  11.9

  13.9

  12.6

  16.9

  1.0

  Brighton and Hove

  —

  7.1

  6.7

  7.7

  7.7

  0.0

  Total former East Sussex area

  18.3

  19.0

  20.6

  20.3

  24.6

  1.0

  Former Hampshire

  61.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  48.9

  48.3

  50.1

  42.9

  4.0

  Portsmouth

  —

  11.0

  9.0

  14.0

  11.0

  2.0

  Southampton

  —

  10.0

  11.6

  12.7

  12.7

  0.0

  Total former Hampshire area

  61.4

  69.9

  68.9

  76.8

  66.6

  6.0

  Former Leicestershire

  26.2

  0.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  21.1

  22.6

  24.6

  21.1

  2.0

  Leicester

  —

  12.7

  13.3

  12.7

  21.0

  5.0

  Rutland

  —

  0.4

  0.0

  0.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Total former Leicestershire area

  26.2

  34.2

  35.9

  37.8

  42.1

  7.0

  Former Staffordshire

  28.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  21.0

  20.0

  22.4

  18.5

  6.0

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  6.1

  8.0

  6.2

  6.1

  0.0

  Total former Staffordshire area

  28.0

  27.1

  28.0

  28.6

  24.6

  6.0

  Former Wiltshire

  13.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  14.3

  20.9

  15.6

  14.1

  0.0

  Swindon

  —

  5.9

  4.9

  6.5

  6.7

  0.0

  Total former Wiltshire area

  13.2

  20.2

  25.8

  22.1

  20.8

  0.0

  Former Berkshire

  20.6

  20.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  —

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  0.0

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  —

  6.6

  6.0

  5.2

  1.0

  West Berkshire

  —

  —

  5.4

  5.8

  8.3

  1.0

  Reading

  —

  —

  4.0

  5.0

  4.5

  1.0

  Slough

  —

  —

  4.9

  7.7

  9.7

  0.0

  Wokingham

  4.9

  5.0

  5.0

  1.0

  Total former Berkshire area

  20.6

  20.2

  28.8

  32.5

  35.7

  4.0

  Former Cambridgeshire

  19.5

  19.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  19.0

  18.3

  16.8

  1.0

  Peterborough

  —

  —

  6.5

  6.5

  6.6

  0.0

  Total former Cambridgeshire area

  19.5

  19.5

  25.5

  24.8

  23.4

  1.0

  Former Cheshire

  30.1

  27.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  18.8

  23.8

  18.4

  15.0

  Halton

  —

  —

  4.0

  5.0

  5.0

  0.0

  Warrington

  —

  —

  6.0

  10.1

  6.0

  2.0

  Total former Cheshire area

  30.1

  27.8

  28.8

  38.9

  29.4

  17.0

  Former Devon

  34.8

  33.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon

  —

  —

  20.8

  18.9

  21.5

  0.0

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  9.5

  9.4

  9.5

  0.0

  Torbay

  —

  —

  3.6

  3.5

  3.5

  0.0

  82W 83W

  Educational psychologists (full-time equivalent)

  In service

  LEA

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  FT vacancies 2001

  Total former Devon area

  34.8

  33.2

  33.9

  31.8

  34.5

  0.0

  Former Essex

  63.3

  60.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  45.6

  47.6

  52.4

  1.0

  Southend on Sea

  —

  —

  4.0

  5.0

  5.8

  1.0

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  4.5

  7.5

  6.0

  1.0

  Total former Essex area

  63.3

  60.5

  54.1

  60.1

  64.2

  3.0

  Former Hereford and Worcestershire

  22.0

  20.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Herefordshire

  —

  —

  4.7

  5.7

  5.6

  0.0

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  19.8

  18.7

  22.6

  0.0

  Total former Hereford and Worcester area

  22.0

  20.2

  24.5

  24.4

  28.2

  0.0

  Former Kent

  55.8

  50.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  37.7

  43.6

  42.4

  5.0

  Medway

  —

  —

  9.5

  10.1

  9.5

  0.0

  Total former Kent area

  55.8

  50.2

  47.2

  53.7

  51.9

  5.0

  Former Lancashire

  55.3

  51.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  40.5

  43.3

  42.1

  1.0

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  —

  8.0

  9.0

  8.0

  0.0

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  5.0

  5.5

  6.5

  0.0

  Total former Lancashire area

  55.3

  51.9

  53.5

  57.8

  56.6

  1.0

  Former Nottinghamshire

  32.9

  30.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  22.8

  25.3

  25.8

  1.0

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  9.2

  9.4

  15.1

  0.0

  Total former Nottinghamshire area

  32.9

  30.8

  32.0

  34.7

  40.9

  1.0

  Former Shropshire

  13.0

  13.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  —

  13.6

  14.5

  16.9

  0.0

  Total former Shropshire area

  13.0

  13.1

  13.6

  14.5

  16.9

  0.0

  Cornwall

  13.0

  13.0

  13.0

  12.8

  13.4

  0.0

  Cumbria

  17.2

  17.2

  17.0

  19.9

  23.6

  2.0

  Gloucestershire

  8.5

  8.5

  17.5

  18.2

  19.1

  0.0

  Hertfordshire

  34.6

  34.9

  35.8

  35.3

  32.4

  3.0

  Isle of Wight

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  0.0

  Lincolnshire

  18.8

  15.4

  17.0

  17.0

  19.0

  1.0

  Norfolk

  24.0

  21.5

  23.5

  20.5

  20.5

  4.0

  Northamptonshire

  23.4

  29.1

  28.4

  28.1

  25.6

  4.0

  Northumberland

  9.2

  8.5

  8.5

  14.5

  9.1

  0.0

  Oxfordshire

  17.9

  19.9

  18.8

  21.1

  22.2

  0.0

  Somerset

  16.3

  16.8

  20.5

  23.5

  23.8

  0.0

  Suffolk

  15.8

  19.8

  19.8

  19.3

  18.7

  2.0

  Surrey

  34.2

  31.2

  31.2

  34.3

  37.0

  2.0

  Warwickshire

  14.8

  14.6

  18.0

  19.9

  16.1

  0.0

  West Sussex

  21.8

  22.7

  21.5

  23.6

  26.2

  3.0

  Total England

  1,767.6

  1,788.1

  1,866.5

  1,928.7

  1,954.4

  176.0

  Source:

  Annual form 618G surveys of teachers in service and teacher vacancies.

  Speech Therapy Services
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she has given to schools and local education authorities about gaining access to speech therapy services for children with relevant special education needs. [51054]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: Access to speech and language therapy services is covered in Chapter 8 of the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Code of Practice, published by the Department in November 2001. There is also a booklet on the role of health professionals in the SEN Toolkit which issued alongside the code.

  Under the SEN category of the Standards Fund, grant support is available to all English local education authorities to enhance speech and language therapy services in conjunction with the NHS and voluntary sector. Such support was recommended in the report of
  84W
  the working group on the provision of speech and language therapy services to children with SEN, published in November 2000.

  Education Act
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which children are not treated as part of the population of a local authority area for the purposes of section 13 of the Education Act 1996. [51175]

  Mr. Timms
  Section 13 of the Education Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) sets out the general responsibility of the local education authority to provide primary, secondary and further education to meet the needs of the population of the area concerned, exclusive of the duties of further and higher education funding councils. This section applies to all children in the area of the local authority concerned, except that none of the LEA's duties under the 1996 Act applies in respect of any person who is in custody because of a court order or an order of recall made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  School Standards and Framework Act
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which children are not included as being part of a local education authority's area, for the purposes of section 118 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, other than those described in subsections 118(1)(a) and (b). [51177]

  Mr. Timms
  Section 118 of the School Standards and Framework Act sets out the duty of the local education authority (LEA) in respect of nursery education. It imposes a duty on the LEA to secure that sufficient nursery education for children who have not attained compulsory school age is provided for their area, whether or not by the LEA. However, section 562 of the Education Act 1996 provides that none of the LEA's duties under that Act are to apply in respect of any person in custody because of a court order or because of an order of recall made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what performance indicators and targets local education authorities are expected to agree with her Department for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03, showing the period covered by the target or indicator and the date by which agreement should be achieved. [51295]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: LEAs agree targets with my Department through their Education Development Plans. LEAs were required to submit the second generation of EDPs in January. I approved the majority of plans at the end of March. There are a small number of authorities that have yet to receive approval for their plan from their councils, all council approval is expected by the beginning of June. The targets in the EDPs are for the academic years 2002–03 and 2003–04 and were set for:
  Key Stage 2 literacy and numeracy at level 4 and above and level 5 and above
  Key Stage 3 English, maths, science and ICT at level 5 and above
  Key Stage 4 percentage to achieve five or more GCSE A*-C, percentage to achieve five or more GCSE at A*-G including English and maths, average point score per pupil
  Key Stage 4 children leaving care at 16+ to achieve five or more GCSE at A*-C and children leaving care with one or more GCSE at A*-G
  Attendance targets for primary, secondary and special schools
  KS2, KS3 and GCSE/GNVQ actual and target performances for minority ethnic groups.

  The only changes from the first EDPs are that there are attendance targets rather than unauthorised absences, and that exclusion targets are no longer required.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what are(a) the agreed performance targets for (i) unauthorised absence, (ii) exclusions, (iii) key stage 2 tests, (iv) GCSEs and (v) A-levels and (b) the performance against those targets, for each local education authority in London in the most recent year for which information is available. [51296]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: Performance targets for unauthorised absence, exclusions, key stage 2 tests and GCSEs were agreed by London
  86W
  Education Authorities in their Education Development Plans covering school years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  Performance targets for key stage 2 tests and GCSEs were agreed by London Education Authorities in their Education Development Plans covering the school years 2002 to 2007. LEAs were not required to agree exclusion targets for 2003 onwards, and absence targets have been altered to include authorised absence figures as well as unauthorised absence figures.

  The latest information on these targets together with the performance results for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 have been placed in the Library.

  Local education authorities do not agree A-Level performance targets.

  Student Transport
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who is responsible for providing funding for transport for post-16 students in Essex; and how much funding is being provided for transport for post-16 students in Essex in the current academic year. [51299]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Essex local education authority has a duty to provide and fund transport support for its post-16 students, where the Authority assesses that this is necessary under Section 509 of the 1966 Education Act.

  Account is taken of transport costs in calculating the Revenue Support Grant, however, there is no specific grant. Local education authorities (LEAs) and colleges also receive Learner Support Funds to help with the costs of student support, including transport.

  In 2001–02, Essex local education authority planned to spend £1.5 million on transport for students aged-16 and over. Additionally, a further £880,000 was planned to support students with special needs.

  Sixth Form Funding
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress her Department has made on equalising funding for sixth form funding for schools and colleges. [51301]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are making a substantial investment in FE. We are putting an extra £237 million into the sector in 2002–03 alone, a 3 per cent. real terms increase. Total funding per student has gone up by 16 per cent. in real terms since 1997. For the academic year 2002–03 the Learning and Skills Council is raising its funding rates for courses delivered by FE sector colleges by 2.5 per cent. in cash terms, the highest increase for years. The Government remains committed to bringing up the level of funding for colleges towards that of schools. We are looking to the current spending review to secure the resources colleges need to deliver our ambitious agenda for FE, and thereby to bring up funding levels.

  Community Champions Funds
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what awards have been made under the Community Champions Funds to projects in(a) the

  87W
  Buckingham constituency, (b) Buckinghamshire and (c) England, indicating the (i) date of award, (ii) amount awarded and (iii) details of the project in each case. [51383]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To date, in excess of 3,500 individuals and small community groups have been awarded grants by the Community Champions Fund. Grants of up to £2,000 have been awarded in all English regions. The total amount awarded by the Community Champions Fund since 1999 is £4.5 million.

  During the lifetime of the Community Champions Fund, only one application for funding has been received from Buckinghamshire. This was supported with a grant of £1,710. The project, known as SKIDZ, is focused on the Black and Minority Ethnic young people and their parents in the region. It encourages support for community education and capitalises on young people's interest in motor vehicles in order to do this.

  Teacher Trainees
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher trainees are enrolled on(a) part-time PGCE courses and (b) school centred initial teacher training [51590]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2001–02, 827 new entrant and continuing teacher trainees enrolled on part-time PGCE courses in England. 1,213 trainees entered courses based in School Centred Initial Teacher Training.

  The figures include forecast recruitment to courses starting in the spring and summer 2002 terms.

  Source:

  2001 Teacher Training Agency ITT Trainee Numbers Census.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher trainees are enrolled in two-year full-time subject conversion PGCE courses; and how many of these trainees are in their second year. [51591]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2001–02, 844 trainees enrolled on two-year, full-time, PGCE courses in England. Of those, 351 are on the second year of their course.

  The figures include forecast recruitment to courses starting in the spring and summer 2002 terms.

  Source:

  2001 Teacher Training Agency ITT Trainee Numbers Census.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher trainees are enrolled in flexible postgraduate teacher training provision. [51596]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2001–02, 1,764 new entrant and continuing teacher trainees enrolled on flexible Postgraduate Initial Teacher Training (PGCE) courses in England.

  The numbers include forecast recruitment to courses starting in the spring and summer 2002 terms.

  Source:

  2001 Teacher Training Agency ITT Trainee Numbers Census.

  Secondary Teachers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the number of secondary teachers that will be needed in schools in England in 2005. [51628]

  Mr. Timms
  Head teachers and governing bodies are best placed to decide on their schools' staffing requirements in the light of local circumstances and the available resources. For their part, the Government are working to improve the overall total number of teachers available for appointment and to increase the funding available to schools to pay for them.

  Between January 1997 and January 2001, the number of full-time equivalent regular teachers working in the maintained schools sector in England rose by 10,990. Of those, 7,250 were employed in secondary schools. The Government have pledged to secure a further increase for the maintained sector of at least 10,000 regular teachers by 2006. The proposals to make more creative use of school support staff that my right hon. Friend described in her speech to the Social Market Foundation on 12 November will help to ensure that schools are able to use these teachers' professional skills to maximum effect.

  Education Policy Costs
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the cost in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 of the (i) National Literacy Strategy and (ii) National Numeracy Strategy. [51592]

  Mr. Timms
  The following funding has been allocated through the Standards Fund to support the implementation of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies.

  £ million

  National Literacy Strategy

  2001–02

  88

  2001–03

  103

  National Numeracy Strategy

  2001–02

  98

  2001–03

  103

  School Violence
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many physical assaults by pupils on other pupils occurred in(a) primary, (b) secondary, (c) special and (d) all schools in England in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [51594]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not available centrally.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in his Department. [41008]
  89W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This answer covers the Headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department, (including Associated Office), the Court Service and Public Guardianship Office.

  The Department is currently undertaking an equality audit of pay and pay related systems in partnership with the trade unions. Once data have been analysed a formal action plan will be drawn up to address any unfair imbalances between groups created as a result of existing policy. Plans for on-going monitoring of the pay and appraisal systems will be formulated following the initial report and action plan. This Equal Pay audit will in addition cover the areas of ethnicity, disability and working hours.

  The new pay and performance management arrangements for members of the Senior Civil Service will also be subject to equality monitoring.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Private Finance Initiative projects have been subject to refinancing after the contracts have been signed; and what has been the financial effect in each case. [50280]

  Mr. Wills
  None of the Lord Chancellor's Department's PFI contracts have been subject to refinancing.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the(a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. [44883]

  Mr. Wills
  Contract signature was delayed on the following private finance initiative (PFI) projects:

  CCS;

  ARAMIS;

  Libra;

  Probate Records Centre;

  Hereford and Worcester magistrates' courts;

  Humberside magistrates' courts;

  Manchester magistrates' court; and

  Derbyshire magistrates' courts.

  Contract signature has also been delayed on the following PFI projects which are still in procurement:

  Sheffield Family Hearing Court;

  East Anglia Scheme;

  Exeter Combined Court;

  Avon and Somerset magistrates' courts; and

  Bedford magistrates' court.

  Contract signature has also been delayed on the Bristol Civil Justice Centre, which is a non-PFI public private partnership.

  A project has been treated as delayed where contract signature has not been achieved by the date that was expected when the project was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Community.

  Immigration Tribunal
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she last visited the Immigration Tribunal. [50700]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I visited the Immigration Appellate Authority in Leeds on 26 September 2001; Taylor House in London on 25 October 2001 and intend to visit Hatton Cross in the near future.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the 2002 departmental report will be published. [49582]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 774W, by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith).

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Service (Recruitment)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the percentage of successful applicants to the Civil Service Selection Board who were educated at(a) public school, (b) Oxford University and (c) Cambridge University in each year since 1997. [50571]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Civil Service Selection Board does not record the schools that Fast Stream applicants have attended. Annex D of the annually published Fast Stream Recruitment Report provides an analysis by university of first degree of candidates each year. This data shows that the percentages of successful applicants who were educated at Oxford and Cambridge universities were as follows:

  Percentage

  Oxford

  Cambridge

  1997

  18.4

  15.9

  1998

  17.4

  17.0

  1999

  14.1

  16.0

  2000

  17.8

  14.3

  Government Services
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to co-locate Government services in locations accessible to(a) parents of young children, (b) old people and (c) those without access to a private motor car. [49798]

  Mr. Leslie
  Electronic delivery of Government services provides the opportunity to bring them together in a convenient way for users, particularly those who find travel difficult. Over half of Government services are already available online, and all will be by 2005.

  The citizen portal at ukonline.gov.uk provides comprehensive information and online services tailored to specific groups of users, including parents and older people, from a single website address. In addition, to assist people who do not have Internet access at home,

  91W
  the Government is rolling out a national network of over 6,000 UK online centres providing convenient access in the local community.

  Furthermore, ukonline.gov.uk will be available through a number of different channels—the first being digital television. A pilot of this, which commenced on 10 April this year, aims to bring Government information and services to those who would prefer to interact with the Government via a television rather than a PC.

  Civil Contingencies Secretarial
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Civil Contingencies Secretariat comprehensive review of the country's plans for dealing with emergencies will be published. [49828]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Civil Contingencies Secretariat's review of the country's plans for dealing with emergencies is a continuing exercise whose findings are regularly reported to the Cabinet's Civil Contingencies Committee and its three sub committees. Generally, and in accordance with long-standing convention, these plans are not made public.

  However, the responses to the Emergency Planning Review and a summary of these responses by the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, have been placed in the Library of the House and placed on the website "www.ukersiliense.inof".

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost in 2001–02 was of the pay increase to staff in his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 2002–03. [50406]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office, the Government Offices, the Central Office of Information, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Government Car and Dispatch Agency all have separate delegated authorities over pay. The estimate of the cost of the pay increase at the time of the settlement for 2001–02 is presented in the table. The estimate of the cost for 2002–03 for the Equal Opportunities Commission is also presented. Costs for the other organisations cannot be given for 2002–03 because the pay increases have yet to be agreed.

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Cabinet Office1

  2.2

  —

  Government Offices1

  2.6

  —

  Central Office of Information1

  0.7

  —

  Government Car and Dispatch Agency2

  0.3

  —

  Equal Opportunities Commission3

  0.2

  0.2

  1Refers to settlement year 1 August to 31 July.

  2Refers to settlement year 1 April to 31 March and excludes non-industrial staff.

  3Refers to settlement year 1 April to 31 March.

  Consultation Documents
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which consultation documents published by Government Departments and their agencies in 2001 did not carry the consultation criteria as recommended in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. [49954]
  92W
  Mr. Leslie
  Responsibility for compliance with the Code of Practice rests with individual Departments and their agencies.

  Government Documents
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of the consultation documents published by Government departments or their agencies in 2001 were made available on the internet. [49949]

  Mr. Leslie
  Monitoring and compliance with the Code of Practice on Written Consultation, including the requirement to make consultation documents available on the internet, rests with individual Departments and their agencies. The Cabinet Office does not, therefore, keep a central statistical record of the percentage of documents put on websites.

TREASURY

  Form DOM1
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many completed versions of Form DOM 1 the Inland Revenue has received in each of the last five fiscal years; and if he will make a statement. [38260]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that the publication of such statistics in a form which would enable me to say how many completed versions of Form DOM I the Inland Revenue has received in each of the last five fiscal years would involve disproportionate cost.

  State Pension
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Treasury has taken to quantify unfunded state pension liabilities in Britain and the European Union since 1996; if he will publish figures for(a) unfunded state pension liabilities and (b) unfunded occupational scheme liabilities for (ii) the UK and (ii) those EU countries for which comparable figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [48700]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government Actuary's Department estimates that as at 31 March 2001 the liabilities for UK unfunded public service pension schemes were about £350 billion and figures for schemes administered by Departments are now published annually in pension scheme Resource Accounts. We do not have comparable information for unfunded private sector schemes or for equivalent unfunded public and private occupational arrangements in other EU countries. On a slightly different basis the Government Actuary has estimated that, as at 1 April 1999, discounted future expenditure on the state pension from past contributions is £1,108 billion (as shown in Table 13.4 of Inland Revenue Statistics 2001, on the Inland Revenue website).

  Comparable figures for state pension expenditures across the EU are not published by Governments. However, the European Commission's Economic Policy Committee (EPC) has published projections of annual expenditure on state pension-related expenditure as a share of GDP in EU member states (in the EPC report "Budgetary Challenges posed by Ageing Populations" of 24 October 2001). Since this study the UK Government

  93W
  has announced the introduction of the pension credit from October 2003, which will slightly increase UK public pension spending as a share of GDP, although this expected to stay broadly around its current level in the long-term ("The Pension Credit: long-term projections", DWP, January 2002).

  Pension Rights
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to public sector pension schemes of the House of Lords' ruling in February 2001 on the pension rights of part-time workers. [50035]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is difficult to estimate precisely the numbers of part-timers eligible for retrospective access to public service schemes. But on the basis of estimates that up to 60,000 part-timers may he granted access, the resulting increase in the present value of public service pension liabilities may lie in the range of £0.5 to £1 billion. These pension liabilities will be payable over a period in excess of 40 years.

  Small Businesses (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the economic prospects for small businesses within the Greater London area. [50589]

  Mr. Boateng
  In terms of business creation, the Greater London area continues to out-perform other UK regions. Recent figures show that the number of VAT registrations in London per 10,000 residents is 65 compared with a UK average of 39. However, as in all regions, the level of small business activity varies markedly across Greater London.

  Small firms in London have access to a range of national and local policies and programmes designed to support new and small businesses. These include financial support (through schemes such as the Small Firms' Loan Guarantee Scheme) and business advice and guidance. The London Regional Venture Capital Fund will be up-and-running shortly provided £50 million of investment for small firms with growth potential.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 April 2002.Official Report, column 576W, on heavily indebted poor countries, if he will estimate the proportion of the additional $50 billion per annum which would be devoted to debt relief, broken down by country. [51278]

  Mr. Boateng
  The cost of achieving the International Development Targets has been estimated at an additional US$50 billion per annum, equivalent to a doubling of current global aid. The commitment by the US and EU is a major step towards meeting the requirements for this additional US$50 billion; there has not yet been full commitment to deliver the entire amount, nor decisions made on how such an amount could be delivered if the total was achieved.

  Debt reduction under the HIPC initiative can therefore be only one element of the additional finance required. Both the US and EU have yet to decide on how to distribute this increased level of resources, we expect that one of the ways could be through debt relief.
  94W
  At the moment the HIPC initiative is helping to increase social expenditures in countries receiving HIPC debt relief by $1.7 billion in 2001–02, equivalent to 1.2 per cent. of GDP. On average, health and education spending account for 65 per cent. (40 per cent. on education and 25 per cent. on health) of the use of HIPC debt relief.

  EU Energy Tax
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had at EU level on the proposed EU energy tax; and if he will make a statement. [50443]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government continues to take part in discussions about proposals for an Energy Products Directive.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the(a) total cost and (b) cost per claimant to businesses for administering (i) working families tax credit, (ii) children's tax credit, (iii) child tax credit and (iv) the working tax credit in the last 12 months. [50992]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the costs to employers of operating the Working Families' Tax Credit and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit are given in paragraphs 40–46 of the regulatory impact assessments for the Tax Credits Bill 1999, a copy of which is in the Library. There are over 1.3 million recipients of these tax credits.

  Employers are involved in administering the Children's Tax Credit only through implementing the PAYE codes routinely supplied by Inland Revenue, which include adjustments for the credit as appropriate. No estimate is available of the additional cost incurred by employers.

  There have been no costs to employers in administering the Child Tax Credit or the Working Tax Credit in the last 12 months.

  Tax Liability
  David Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on recent action which he has taken to ensure that the full tax liability is paid by very wealthy individuals. [51000]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: Whilst recognising the right of businesses and individuals to manage their tax affairs efficiently, the Government is committed to ensuring a fairer tax system by countering abuses and contrived avoidance schemes. Each Budget since 1997 has included measures to secure the tax base and combat avoidance by blocking tax loopholes, including those used by wealthy individuals. We will continue to stop abuses of the tax system which benefit a small minority at the expense of taxpayers generally.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 2002 Budget speech reiterated this commitment when he said that, "to ensure fairness for taxpayers and businesses, we must act swiftly to close tax loopholes and be vigilant against tax avoidance". He also announced that the Government is reviewing the complex rules of residence and domicile.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Utilities Contracts (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51880]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions) (Designated Date for the Securities and Futures Authority) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51888]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Climate Change Levy (Electricity and Gas) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51896]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Official Listing of Securities) (Transitional Provisions) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51904]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act and Meaning of Collective Investment Scheme) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51848]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51852]

  (7) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Open-Ended Investment Companies Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51856]

  (8) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Capital Allowances (Energy-Saving Plant and Machinery) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51860]

  (9) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Commencement No. 5) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51864]

  (10) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions) (Authorised Persons etc.) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51868]

  (11) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Variation of Threshold Conditions) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51872]

  (12) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (EEA Passport Rights) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51876]

  (13) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions) (Ombudsman Schemes and Complaints Scheme) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51884]

  (14) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Climate Change Levy (Combined Heat and Power Stations) Prescribed Conditions and Efficiency Percentages Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51892]
  96W
  (15) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 4) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51900]

  (16) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Personal Portfolio Bonds (Tax) (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51908]

  (17) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disclosure of Confidential Information) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51832]

  (18) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulations Relating to Money Laundering) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51834]

  (19) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) (Miscellaneous) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51836]

  (20) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disclosure of Information by Prescribed Persons) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51838]

  (21) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 4) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51840]

  (22) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51842]

  (23) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 5) (Northern Ireland) Regulations; and if he will make a statement: [51844]

  (24) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services (EEA Passport Rights) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51846]

  (25) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 7) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51878]

  (26) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Commencement No. 4 and Transitional Provision) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51882]

  (27) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 6) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51890]

  (28) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Capital Gains Tax (Gilt-Edged Securities) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51898]
  97W
  (29) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Public Offers of Securities (Exemptions) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51906]

  (30) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Underlying Tax on Dividends and Dual Resident Company) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51850]

  (31) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Professional Bodies) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51854]

  (32) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Dissolution of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council) (Consequential Provisions) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51858]

  (33) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the National Savings Stock Register (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51862]

  (34) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Insolvency) (Definition of "Insurer") Order; and if he will make a statement; [51866]

  (35) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Controllers) (Exemption) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51870]

  (36) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consultation with Competent Authorities) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51874]

  (37) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Stamp Duty Reserve Tax (TradePoint) (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51886]

  (38) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Climate Change Levy (Use as Fuel) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51894]

  (39) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consequential Amendments) (Pre-Commencement Modifications) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51902]

  (40) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions and Savings) (Civil Remedies, Discipline, Criminal Offences etc) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51910]

  (41) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Service of Notices) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51847]

  (42) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Collective Investment Schemes Constituted in Other EEA States) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51881]
  98W
  (43) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 6) (Northern Ireland) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51889]

  (44) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Income Tax (Car Benefits) (Reduction of Value of Appropriate Percentage) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51897]

  (45) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Official Listing of Securities) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51905]

  (46) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions and Savings) (Rules) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51849]

  (47) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Appointed Representatives) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51853]

  (48) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Commencement No. 2) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51857]

  (49) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Communications by Auditors) Order; and if he will make a statement; 151861]

  (50) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (Amendment) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51865]

  (51) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions) (Controllers) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51869]

  (52) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Appointed Representatives) (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51873]

  (53) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions) (Reviews of Pensions Business) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51877]

  (54) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Conversion of Buildings) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51885]

  (55) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Climate Change Agreements (Energy-intensive Installations) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51893]

  (56) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions, Repeals and Savings) (Financial Services Compensation Scheme) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51901]
  99W
  (57) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) (Miscellaneous) (No. 2) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51909]

  (58) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Compensation Scheme: Electing Participants) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51833]

  (59) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Commencement No. 3) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51835]

  (60) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Building Societies (Restricted Transactions) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51837]

  (61) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Competition Information) (Specification of Enactment etc) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51839]

  (62) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (New Deal Consequential Amendments) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51841]

  (63) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality) (Revocation) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51843]

  (64) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 5) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51845]

  (65) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Gaming Contracts) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51875]

  (66) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 7) (Northern Ireland) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51879]

  (67) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Meaning of "Policy" and "Policy holder") Order; and if he will make a statement; [51883]

  (68) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits Up-rating Order; and if he will make a statement; [51891]

  (69) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 4) (Northern Ireland) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51899]

  (70) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Refund of Tax to Museums and Galleries) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51907]
  100W
  (71) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51851]

  (72) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Professions) (Non-Exempt Activities) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51855]

  (73) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Tax Credits (New Deal Consequential Amendments) (Northern Ireland) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51859]

  (74) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Mutual Societies) Order; and if he will make a statement; [51863]

  (75) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Law Applicable to Contracts of Insurance) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51867]

  (76) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Own-initiative Power) (Overseas Regulations) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51871]

  (77) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Rights of Action) Regulations (Commencement); and if he will make a statement; [51887]

  (78) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Climate Change Levy (Solid Fuel) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [51895]

  (79) what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Offers of Securities) Order; and if he will make a statement. [51903]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 17 April 2002,Official Report, columns 976–82W.

HEALTH

  GP Registrars
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of GP registrars intending not to work full-time on qualifying. [39205]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Information is not collected or held centrally on the future working intentions of GP registrars.

  Ambulance Service
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of responses was achieved
  101W
  to (a) Category A calls within eight minutes and (b) category B calls within 14 minutes in (i) Q4 2000–01, (ii) Q1 2001-02, (iii) Q2 2001-02 and (iv) Q3 2001-02 by urban ambulance services. [46288]

  Ms Blears
  Information about ambulance responses to emergency calls is not available on a quarterly basis. The most recent information available for urban and all other ambulance NHS trusts about the proportion of emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of the reported incident within the Government's target response times is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2000–01". A copy of the bulletin is in the Library and available at.www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0115.htm.

  Latest provisional management information indicates that at February 2002, 28 out of the 32 ambulance trusts in England were achieving our key target of responding to 75 per cent. of immediately life threatening '999 calls' within eight minutes (category A). All ambulance trusts are expected to achieve the 75 per cent. target during 2002.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the average turnaround times for ambulance crew for(a) England, (b) NHS trusts and (c) each NHS region in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [42896]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Agency Nurses
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what transitional arrangements he intends to introduce to enable criminal records checks to be made in respect of agency nurses in the first year of operation of Criminal Records Bureau disclosures. [41713]

  Jacqui Smith
  Paragraph 6(c) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (Commencement No. 9 (England) and Transitional and Savings Provisions) order 2001 sets out the transitional arrangements for the provision to the National Care Standards Commission of documentation relating to criminal record certificates in respect of persons supplied by existing licensed nurses agencies.

  Health Staff
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general practitioners, (b) nurses, (c) cancer specialists and (d) consultants per 1,000 head of population there were in (i) St Helens and Knowsley Health Authority, (ii) Merseyside, (iii) the North West, (iv) England and (v) Scotland in (1) 1998, (2) 1999, (3) 2000, (4) 2001 and (5) the quarter to 31 March 2002. [48662]

  Mr. Hutton
  The latest census figures collected are for September 2001, 2002 figures are not yet available. Liverpool health authority contains the data for Merseyside. The Department does not have figures for Scotland.

  Available information is shown in the table.
  102W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS) Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including GMS practice nurses), medical and dental consultants, hospital medical staff within the cancer specialities and general practitioners by specified health authorities within the north west regional office area and per 1,000 population as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  per 1,000 population

  1998

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including practice nurses)

  England

  323,460

  7

  North west

  46,990

  7

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  4,370

  9

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  1,720

  5

  All practitioners1

  England

  29,700

  1

  North west

  3,830

  1

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  280

  1

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  190

  1

  UPEs2

  England

  27,390

  1

  North west

  3,500

  1

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  250

  1

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  180

  1

  All HCHS Consultants

  England

  22,220

  0

  Northwest

  3,130

  0

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  440

  1

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  100

  0

  All cancer specialist staff

  England

  5,350

  0

  North west

  710

  0

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  90

  0

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  20

  0

  All cancer specialist consultants

  England

  3,270

  0

  North west

  450

  0

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  50

  0

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  20

  0

  1999

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including practice nurses)

  England

  329,640

  7

  North west

  47,920

  7

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  4,420

  10

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  1,770

  5

  All practitioners1

  England

  29,990

  1

  North west

  3,900

  1

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  280

  1

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  190

  1

  UPEs2

  England

  27,590

  1

  North west

  3,600

  1

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  250

  1

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  180

  1

  All HCHS Consultants

  England

  23,220

  0

  North west

  3,310

  1

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  440

  1

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  100

  0

  103W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS) Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including GMS practice nurses), medical and dental consultants, hospital medical staff within the cancer specialities and general practitioners by specified health authorities within the north west regional office area and per 1,000 population as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  Per 1,000 population

  All cancer specialist staff

  England

  5,690

  0

  North west

  760

  0

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  80

  0

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  20

  0

  All cancer specialist consultants

  England

  3,360

  0

  North west

  470

  0

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  50

  0

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  10

  0

  2000

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including practice nurses)

  England

  335,950

  7

  North west

  48,540

  7

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  4,620

  10

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  1,790

  5

  All practitioners1

  England

  30,250

  1

  North west

  3,910

  1

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  280

  1

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  190

  1

  UPEs2

  England

  27,700

  1

  North west

  3,610

  1

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  250

  1

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  180

  1

  All HCHS Consultants

  England

  24,310

  0

  North west

  3,430

  1

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  450

  1

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  100

  0

  All cancer specialist staff

  England

  5,960

  0

  North west

  820

  0

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  90

  0

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  20

  0

  All cancer specialist consultants

  England

  3,530

  0

  North west

  480

  0

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  50

  0

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  20

  0

  2001

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including practice nurses)

  England

  350,380

  7

  North west

  49,720

  8

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  4,800

  11

  0QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  1,910

  6

  All practitioners1

  England

  30,680

  1

  North west

  3,950

  1

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  290

  1

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  200

  1

  104W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS) Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including GMS practice nurses), medical and dental consultants, hospital medical staff within the cancer specialities and general practitioners by specified health authorities within the north west regional office area and per 1,000 population as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  Per 1,000 population

  UPEs2

  England

  27,840

  1

  North west

  3,600

  1

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  250

  1

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  180

  1

  All HCHS Consultants

  England

  25,690

  1

  North west

  3,590

  1

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  480

  11

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  120

  0

  All cancer specialist staff

  England

  6,380

  0

  North west

  840

  0

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  90

  0

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  20

  0

  All cancer specialist consultants

  England

  3,720

  0

  North west

  490

  0

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  60

  0

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  10

  0

  Notes:

  1 All practitioners (excluding GP retainers) include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs, PMS salaried GPs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS other.

  2 UPEs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  Headcount figures are rounded to the nearest ten, rates of population are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Figures exclude agency staff.

  Population data based on 1998 figures and projections for subsequent years.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Office for National Statistics.

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS) Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including GMS practice nurses), medical and dental consultants, hospital medical staff within the cancer specialities and general practitioners by specified health authorities within the north west regional office area and per 1,000,000 population as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  per 100,000 population

  1998

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including practice nurses)

  England

  323,460

  654

  North west

  46,990

  712

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  4,370

  946

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  1,720

  517

  All practitioners1

  England

  29,700

  60

  North west

  3,830

  58

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  280

  60

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  190

  58

  105W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS) Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including GMS practice nurses), medical and dental consultants, hospital medical staff within the cancer specialities and general practitioners by specified health authorities within the north west regional office area and per 1,000,000 population as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  per 100,000 population

  UPEs2

  England

  27,390

  55

  North west

  3,500

  54

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  250

  55

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  180

  55

  All HCHS Consultants

  England

  22,220

  45

  North west

  3,130

  47

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  440

  94

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  100

  31

  All cancer specialist staff

  England

  5,350

  11

  Northwest

  710

  11

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  90

  19

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  20

  6

  All cancer specialist consultants

  England

  3,270

  7

  North west

  450

  7

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  50

  10

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  20

  5

  1999

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including practice nurses)

  England

  329,640

  663

  North west

  47,920

  727

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  4,420

  965

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  1,770

  532

  All practitioners1

  England

  29,990

  60

  North west

  3,900

  59

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  280

  61

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  190

  58

  UPEs2

  England

  27,590

  55

  North west

  3,600

  55

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  250

  55

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  180

  55

  All HCHS Consultants

  England

  23,220

  47

  North west

  3,310

  50

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  440

  97

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  100

  30

  All cancer specialist staff

  England

  5,690

  11

  North west

  760

  12

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  80

  18

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  20

  6

  All cancer specialist consultants

  England

  3,360

  7

  North west

  470

  7

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  50

  11

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  10

  4

  106W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS) Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including GMS practice nurses), medical and dental consultants, hospital medical staff within the cancer specialities and general practitioners by specified health authorities within the north west regional office area and per 1,000,000 population as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  per 100,000 population

  2000

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including practice nurses)

  England

  335,950

  672

  North west

  48,540

  734

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  4,620

  1,011

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  1,790

  540

  All practitioners1

  England

  30,250

  61

  North west

  3,910

  59

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  280

  61

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  190

  56

  UPEs2

  England

  27,700

  55

  North west

  3,610

  55

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  250

  55

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  180

  54

  All HCHS Consultants

  England

  24,310

  49

  North west

  3,430

  52

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  450

  99

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  100

  32

  All cancer specialist staff

  England

  5,960

  12

  North west

  820

  12

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  90

  19

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  20

  7

  All cancer specialist consultants

  England

  3,530

  7

  North west

  480

  7

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  50

  12

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  20

  5

  2001

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including practice nurses)

  England

  350,380

  698

  North west

  49,720

  753

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  4,800

  1,058

  0QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  1,910

  581

  All practitioners1

  England

  30,680

  61

  North west

  3,950

  60

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  290

  63

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  200

  61

  UPEs2

  England

  27,840

  55

  North west

  3,600

  54

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  250

  55

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  180

  54

  All HCHS Consultants

  England

  25,690

  51

  North west

  3,590

  54

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  480

  105

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  120

  36

  107W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS) Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including GMS practice nurses), medicaland dental consultants, hospital medical staff within the cancer specialities and general practitioners by specified health authorities within the north west regional office area and per 1,000,000 population as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  per 100,000 population

  All cancer specialist staff

  England

  6,380

  13

  Northwest

  840

  13

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  90

  20

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  20

  5

  All cancer specialist consultants

  England

  3,720

  7

  North west

  490

  7

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  60

  13

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  10

  4

  1All practitioners (excluding GP retainers) include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (para 52 SFA), PMS Other

  2UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  Notes:

  Headcount figures are rounded to the nearest 10, rates of population are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Figures exclude agency staff.

  Population data based on 1998 figures and projections for subsequent years.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census Office for National Statistics

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the steps being taken to reduce the number of operations cancelled at short notice. [40827]

  Mr. Hutton
  From 1 April 2002 any patient whose operation is cancelled by the hospital on the day of surgery for non-clinical reasons will be offered another binding date within a maximum of the next 28 days or can choose to have their treatment funded at the time and hospital of the patient's choice.

  On 5 March 2001, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that the NHS Modernisation Agency would be developing good practice in operating theatres and ensure this is spread throughout the NHS. Initial guidance was issued in December 2001. Further guidance to improving operating theatre performance will be published later this year.

  In addition. £8.5 million has been made available to assist NHS trusts in reducing cancelled operations. NHS trusts with the greatest challenges will receive £75,000 to fund a full-time manager and support from doctors to tackle the problem. They will have to meet specific targets set by the Modernisation Agency and their performance will be subject to monthly reviews. All other trusts will receive up to £35,000 incentive funding to help them reduce the number of cancelled operations.
  108W
  The Government have also taken a number of other steps that will contribute to the reduction of cancelled operations.

  A £100 million programme of investment was announced in November 2001. This will contribute to reducing hospital bed occupancy rates by purchasing additional operations in the private sector.

  NHS Plan target to have 20,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors, 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 more GPs and 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals by 2004.

  Introduction of on-the-spot booking systems to ensure hospitals organise their clinic slots and theatre sessions more productively.

  A programme of investment in NHS facilities, including Diagnostic and Treatment Centres, to create additional acute capacity and separate the bulk of routine elective care from competing emergency pressures.

  Commissioner for Children
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to introduce a Commissioner for Children in England. [45958]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government take the needs of children very seriously and are committed to improving safeguards for children. We are following with interest the developments both in Wales—where a Commissioner has already been appointed—and in Northern Ireland, where a similar course is being followed. We are committed to learning all the lessons from these initiatives that prove relevant to England. We have made major advances through the establishment of the Children and Young People's Unit, and the appointment of Dr. Roger Morgan as the Children's Rights Director and Professor Al Aynsley-Green as the National Clinical Director for Children.

  National Care Standards
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people responded to the consultation on national care standards; how many welcomed the introduction of new standards; and how many did so subject to the provision of adequate resources. [41273]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The number of responses to the various consultations on national minimum standards was as follows:

  Care homes for older people: 1,250

  Care homes for younger adults: 500

  Children's homes: 227

  Fostering services: 68

  Boarding schools and FE colleges: 141.

  The overwhelming majority of respondents welcomed the introduction of new standards. This included the majority of providers even though they also highlighted the resource implications.

  NHS Plan News
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many copies of NHS Plan News were returned for recycling by NHS premises. [42308]
  109W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: As part of the distribution management process for NHS Plan News, all NHS organisations and social service departments were asked to suggest the number of copies likely to be required by that organisation.

  Only in the case of distribution errors or changes in requirements did the Department arrange for the return of copies. Amendments to the distribution database were immediate. It was not, therefore, necessary to retain information about copies collected or returned.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment has been made by the NICE on the effectiveness of TNF alpha blockers in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis; [42537]

  (2) whether TNF alpha-blockers are available on NHS prescription. [42538]

  Jacqui Smith
  TNF alpha blockers are available on the national health service (NHS). All licensed medicines are available on the NHS unless they are listed on schedule 10 or 11 to the NHS (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 which restricts prescribing by GPs.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance on 22 March 2002, recommending the use in appropriate cases of etanercept for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis and etanercept and infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis.

  NICE's guidance is available on the internet at www.nice.org.uk or by writing to NICE at 11 Strand, London, WC2N 5HR.

  Patients Charter
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Patient's Charter provides commitments to detained patients. [42941]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Patient's Charter for Mental Health Services applies to services provided by the national health service for people with a mental illness. It includes a section on care under the Mental Health Act summarising the rights of detained patients and drawing attention to the provisions and safeguards laid down within the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Code of Practice, which protect patient rights.

  Mental Health
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of delays in cases waiting for a mental health review tribunal hearing; and how many patients are waiting for a mental health review tribunal hearing. [42938]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is responsible for providing administrative support to the tribunal including the handling of applications and organisation of hearings. Every effort is made to ensure that cases of patients detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 are heard within the statutory time limit of seven days that is set out in the Act. All other applications are scheduled for hearing as soon as possible following receipt. During the period January 2001 to December 2001 20,274 application were received in England and 11,765 hearings 110W
  were held. The difference between the number of applications made and the number of cases heard is accounted for by applicants withdrawing of their own volition, adjournment of hearings on the authority of the regional chairmen, change in status of the patient's detention under the Act or discharge from detention by the responsible medical officer before the date of the hearing. Of 3,646 section 2 cases heard during the period 22 per cent. were disposed of outside the statutory time limit. The average waiting times for hearings are shown in the table.

  Average waiting times (January to December 2001)

  Time

  Section 2

  7.5 days

  Non-restricted

  7.6 weeks

  Restricted

  18.8 weeks

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is allocated to mental health care per capita(a) for patients in prisons and (b) for patients who are not in prison, in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [43557]

  Jacqui Smith
  The majority of funding for mental health care is allocated as part of health authority general allocations and separate figures for mental health care are not available. It is not therefore possible to provide details of funding allocated to mental health care per capita.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many clinics(a) in London and (b) in England offer electric shock therapy for forms of mental illness. [48868]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Schizophrenia
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans the Government have to improve training and support for families and close friends of people suffering from schizophrenia; [47916]

  (2) what additional support and training for families and close friends of people suffering from schizophrenia has been put in place since 1997; [47735]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Service Framework for Mental Health (MHNSF), launched in 1999, sets out clear standards for the modernisation of mental health services by setting out new standards for the delivery of specialised assessment, treatment and care.

  It covers the main issues for mental health services, for service users, their carers and those working in local health and social care communities, including action on stigma and inequalities in mental health.

  In the MHNSF, Standard Six was set to provide support specifically to carers. It states that
  All individuals who provide regular and substantial care for a person on care programme approach should:
  have an assessment of their caring, physical and mental health needs, repeated on at least an annual basis;
  have their own written care plan which is given to them and implemented in discussion with them.
  111W
  By October 2004, mental health services are expected to have identified and assessed all carers of those people with mental health problems as well as agreeing and implementing their carer support plans. To ensure that the friends and families of those people with mental health problems receive the information they need to support them in their role, the Department has produced a leaflet, "A Commitment to Carers', that informs families and friends what they should expect from mental health services. This leaflet was widely distributed not only to service users and their families but also to mental health services and helps to outline that modern, responsive mental health services need to acknowledge the importance of the support networks that families and friends provide to those people with mental health problems.

  The NHS Plan, launched in 2000, states that:
  by 2004, 700 more staff will be recruited to increase the breaks available for carers, and to strengthen carer support networks. There are very few such staff at present. By then around 165,000 carers will be receiving the support they need to continue to provide care.

  The Department is developing guidelines on a service specification for support of carers of people with mental health problems. These guidelines will be included in the Mental Health Policy Implementation guide by May 2002.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research(a) has been carried out since 1997 and (b) is planned to assess (i) the importance of swift treatment for patients suffering from schizophrenia and (ii) the impact on their recovery of delayed treatment and care; [47924]

  (2) what research is planned to assess the different rates of recovery of patients suffering from schizophrenia, according to (a) different social groups and (b) whether they received private or public care; [47920]

  (3) what research (a) has been carried out since 1997 and (b) is planned to assess the effectiveness of different non-drug treatments and combinations of treatments, with particular reference to (i) one-to-one and (ii) group therapy for schizophrenia. [47917]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. In 1999–2000 MRC spent £17.6 million on mental health disorders research which includes the investigation, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the whole spectrum of mental health problems ranging from mild depression to severe psychosis.

  The Department has funded a number of projects on schizophrenia since 1997.
  Ongoing projects
  The CUTLASS Study: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of atypical anti-psychotic drugs in severe schizophrenia.
  The management of patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in primary care.
  Group cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for schizophrenia.
  Implementing family interventions for people with schizophrenia in a routine clinical service.
  South Thames evidence-based practice: implementation and evaluation (STEP).
  112W
  Completed projects
  Suicide in Schizophrenia: a systematic review of risk factors and review of effects of pharmacological and psychosocial treatments in preventing suicide.
  A systematic evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of 'atypical' anti-psychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia.
  Systematic reviews of (i) comparative studies of depot neuroleptic drugs, and (ii) studies of oral v. depot neuroleptic agents for patients with schizophrenia: clinical, social and economic outcomes.
  Systematic review of the effectiveness of day care for people with severe mental disorders.
  The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the use of the newer (atypical) anti-psychotic drugs in the treatment of schizophrenia.
  Development and evaluation of personalised patient information for patients with schizophrenia living in the community.
  What factors are associated with continuing contact with specialist psychiatric services among people with chronic psychosis identified in general practice.
  A pilot study of the mental health crisis cards.

  Details of all Department of Health funded research are available on the National Research Register (NRR) www.doh.gov.uk/research.

  A number of initiatives are either in progress or identified for future action. The Department has commissioned a literature review and scoping exercise relating to the early intervention in psychosis for the development of service models. Further primary research in this area may be required. In addition, the Department has also commissioned work in relation to services for women, in-patient care and assertive outreach. Although not explicitly targeting people with schizophrenia, they will clearly also be addressed as part of these studies. Future priorities include dual diagnosis (substance misuse and severe mental illness) and the management of mental health in primary care.

  The Department has recently conducted a review of mental health research carried out in the NHS. Future research strategy will take account of the gaps identified.

  Public Health
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) the statutory responsibility for public health matters, (b) the responsibility for preventative action in support of public health and (c) the funding responsibility for these functions in cases where the boundary of a primary care trust is not wholly within or consistent with the boundary of a proposed strategic health authority. [43136]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: We have set out in "Shifting the Balance of Power: the Next Steps" the public health functions and responsibilities of NHS bodies. Necessary and appropriate legislation and regulations to implement these functions are being laid before Parliament.

  The NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill currently before Parliament includes a requirement for each primary care trust to have a director of public health as a board member. This will form part of a public health delivery system which will have a strong public health team in every PCT focused on improving health, preventing serious illness and reducing health inequalities

  113W
  in the populations served to ensure maximum improvement to health through prevention and other interventions.

  In future the intention is that allocations will be made direct to primary care trusts subject to the passage of legislation through Parliament. PCTs will receive an allocation for their relevant population. Therefore the small number of PCTs who have partial co-terminosity with strategic health authorities will not be affected adversely nor will their use of funding to support public health programmes locally.

  Cataracts
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was for cataract extraction in(a) England and (b) each NHS trust for each year since 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [44275]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the average median waiting time for cataract extraction in England and each NHS trust for each year since 1997–98 has been placed in the Library.

  Underspend
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) capital and (b) revenue underspend in his Department is expected to be in the financial year 2001–02. [47798]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Estimated outturn figures for 2001–02 were published in the Budget report on 17 April.

  Fire Safety
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money he intends to make available this year to improve fire safety in the NHS. [47854]

  Mr. Hutton
  Every year we make available to national health service trusts significant funds in the form of block capital allocations for the purpose of improving fire safety together with other priorities. A separate figure for fire is not identified. Further, we are currently implementing the largest ever hospital building programme in the history of the NHS which is replacing increasing amounts of worn out stock with modern, high quality buildings, which is contributing to our drive to raise the standards of the estate.

  Worcestershire Royal Hospital
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of car parking facilities at the new Worcestershire Royal hospital. [47591]

  Yvette Cooper
  I am advised that the car park requirements for the new Worcestershire hospital have been prepared by traffic consultants for the trust, using planning standards. Both Worcester city and Worcestershire county planning and highways officers have agreed the car park calculations for the site.

  At a meeting on 10 January 2002 the Worcester city council planning sub committee approved the provision of 337 additional car parking spaces on the south car park
  114W
  and this work is due for completion at the end of June 2002. This will bring the total of available spaces on site to 1,322.

  In the meantime, I am advised that the trust has negotiated with the new owners of the Ronkswood site to allow staff to park there until September 2002, freeing up car parking spaces for visitors. Two mini buses run to and from Ronkswood and various points around the Worcestershire Royal hospital between 6 am and 10 pm daily.

  Adult Protection
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 941W, regarding protection of vulnerable adults, if he will list the relevant stakeholders that will be consulted in the exercise. [50504]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are planning to begin the consultation exercise in the early summer. The stakeholders that will be consulted will be all councils with social services responsibilities, a wide range of relevant independent sector agencies, the NHS and independent health care sector and employment organisations. The consultation document will also be published on the Department's website.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average daily number of available beds in residential care for(a) mental illnesses and (b) learning disabilities in (i) St. Helens and Knowsley health authority. (ii) Merseyside, (iii) the North West (iv) England and (v) Scotland in (1) 1998, (2) 1999, (3) 2000, (4) 2001 and (5) the quarter to 31 March 2002. [48664]

  Jacqui Smith
  Annual information on the average daily number of available NHS residential care beds for England, regional office areas and each NHS trust is on the Department of Health website www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity. Information on the number of places in local authority and independent sector care homes at 31 March for the relevant years in given in the table.

  Information relating to Scotland is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Places in local authority and independent sector residential and nursing care homes for mentally ill an learning disabled people

  Rounded numbers at 31 March

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  Mental illness1

  390

  430

  430

  450

  Learning disability

  410

  300

  310

  320

  Merseyside

  Mental illness1

  2,760

  2,860

  2,740

  2,880

  Learning disability

  1,930

  1,850

  1,840

  1,940

  North West

  Mental illness1

  9,300

  9,910

  10,030

  9,620

  Learning disability

  5,390

  5,020

  5,440

  5,360

  England

  Mental illness1

  66,500

  66,180

  68,760

  68,880

  Learning disability

  53,480

  55,290

  57,410

  47,090

  1 Includes homes for elderly mentally ill people

  Source:

  DH Returns
  115W
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the eligibility criteria for people with dementia towards help in meeting their costs should they require residential care; and if he will make a statement. [49925]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government expect that access to care services should be determined on the basis of individuals' needs and risks to independence, rather than reference to particular health conditions or other circumstances. Guidance on fair eligibility criteria for adult social care will be published shortly.

  When individuals need to enter residential care their eligibility for financial support from local councils, and the contribution they should make to care home fees, is determined in accordance with the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992. All residents are treated equally under these regulations.

  Stroke Services
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which general hospitals have plans to introduce a specialist stroke service by April 2004; [49733]

  (2) what action he will take to ensure that general hospitals without a plan to introduce a specialist stroke service by April 2004 address this issue; [49734]

  (3) if all general hospitals providing care for people with strokes have met the April 2002 milestone, as stated in the National Service Framework for Older People, to develop plans for the introduction of a specialist stroke service by April 2004; and if he will make a statement; [49732]

  (4) what resources are available to assist general hospitals treating people with stroke to introduce a specialist stroke service by April 2004. [49735]

  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS National Planning Framework for 2002–03, published at the end of last year establishes the delivery of the milestones set within the National Service Framework for Older People including the first Stroke milestone of April 2002 as a national priority for actin and achievement. The year on year increases in the funding of the NHS and social care provide the basis for appropriate financial support and priority setting at local level in relation to the development of stroke care, depending on the starting point in each individual area.

  Progress against the April 2002 Stroke milestone will be available in the summer. Informal reports from regional offices indicate that the milestone should be met in all but a few cases. Any hospital identified by the strategic health authority in this monitoring process as not having plans will be offered appropriate advice.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the target date of April 2001 for the establishment of new performance appraisal arrangements for all staff of the Food Standards Agency was met. [49225]

  Yvette Cooper
  New performance appraisal arrangements were introduced for staff employed by the Food Standards Agency with the first reports being completed from April 2001.
  116W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the result is of the examination by the Food Standards Agency, in co-operation with the Public Health Laboratory Service and others, of the best means of gathering data for the food poisoning baseline. [49213]

  Yvette Cooper
  At its public board meeting on 9 May 2001, the Food Standards Agency's board agreed that laboratory reports of the major foodborne bacteria, excluding those cases reported to have been acquired abroad, provided the most robust basis for setting the baseline for its target to reduce foodborne disease over a five-year period. Information on laboratory-reported cases is provided to the agency by the National Surveillance Centres. Based on laboratory reports for the year ending 31 December 2000, the baseline figure is 62,209. This was announced by the agency on 23 August 2001.

  Hospital Beds
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available in(a) England and (b) each NHS trust in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [48923]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the average daily number of available and occupied beds for England and for each national health service trust in each of the last five years is on the Department's website:www.doh.gov.uk/ hospitalactivity.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average daily number of(a) available beds open overnight and (b) occupied beds for wards open overnight for (i) acute wards, (ii) geriatric wards, (iii) mental illness wards (iv) maternity wards and (v) learning disability wards, in (A) St Helens and Knowsley Health Authority, (B) Merseyside, (C) the North West, (D) England and (E) Scotland in (1) 1998, (2) 1999, (3) 2000, (4) 2001 and (5) the quarter to 31 March 2002. [48663]

  Jacqui Smith
  Annual information on the average daily number of available and occupied beds for England, regional office areas and each NHS trust is on the Department of Health website www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  Information relating to Scotland is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Advisory Group on Radiation, Risk and Society
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 438, what the membership is of the Advisory Group on Radiation, Risk and Society; what the (a) terms of reference, and (b) criteria for the choice of members are; and if he will make a statement on what guidelines individual members of the group have been given on (i) disclosing proceedings and ii) publishing material subsequently, that relates to the advisory group. [49689]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Radiological Protection Board's Radiation, Risk and Society Advisory Group (R,RSAG) was set up by NRPB in 2001. The R,RSAG is an independent advisory group that reports to the board of NRPB whose minutes are published on the NRPB website (www.nrpb.org). R,RSAG membership and terms of
  117W
  reference are set out. Members have been drawn from a number of academic disciplines. Criteria for membership are academic experience in how to explain risk in general and radiological risk in particular to the public and a willingness to serve. The constraints on membership are the need for a group that is not too big to allow views to be debated adequately and the need for several academic disciplines to be represented.

  The group has discussed disclosure of its proceedings. It was agreed that the group's considerations and discussions would remain confidential until an agreed position was ready to be made public. Papers and reports from the group would be published but would not be released during the drafting process. Minutes of meetings would be published on the web.

  Radiation, Risk and Society Advisory Group

  Membership

  Chairman

  Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, University of Durham

  Members

  Professor Ruth Byrne, Trinity College, Dublin

  Ms Deborah Cohen, BBC

  Professor William Gelletly, University of Surrey

  Mr. Edward McConnell, The Marlborough School

  Professor Jim McQuaid, Royal Academy of Engineering

  Dr. Michael Murphy, University of Oxford

  Professor Nick Pidgeon, University of East Anglia

  Professor Simon Wessely, Institute of Psychiatry

  Dr. Hilary Walker, Department of Health, also attends by invitation.

  Secretariat

  Mr. John Croft, National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton

  Dr. Roy Hamlet, National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton

  Dr. Jill Meara, National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton

  Terms of Reference

  The assessment, on a continuing basis, of what the public wants to know about radiation, risk, arid how society will be affected by such issues. It will do this by
  Listening to the public and understanding their concerns. The telephone inquiries are a rich source of such information. This would include meeting with the public and pressure groups.
  Providing education and information on radiation and risk.
  Ensuring that the public know how decisions are made in NRPB, including the role of scientific experts, and public involvement.
  Enabling the public to understand and be involved in decisions involving radiation hazards.
  Raising awareness of NRPB
  Making the findings and recommendations from the work of R,RSAG widely available within NRPB and to other organisations.

  Dental Care
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he plans to introduce free dental care to those who are unemployed or on low incomes; [49678]

  (2) what NHS dental services have to be paid for and by whom; and if he plans to lower dental charges. [49677]
  118W
  Jacqui Smith
  Many patients receiving national health service dental treatment are either exempt from charges or can receive partial help with the cost. People who fall into the following categories are exempt from charges:Aged under 18.
  Aged under 19 and in full-time education.
  Receiving income support or income based jobseeker's allowance.
  Pregnant or has borne a child within the last 12 calendar months.
  Receiving working families tax credits or disabled person's tax credits, which are not reduced by more than £72.20 per week.

  Patients not entitled to free treatment may be able to pay a reduced amount under the NHS low income scheme.

  Patients who are not exempt from charges pay 80 per cent. of the cost of their treatment, up to a maximum of £366 per course of treatment. The NHS pays the remaining 20 per cent., and any charges over and above £366.

  There are no immediate plans to change the exemption categories or the proportion of the charge paid by patients.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the provision of NHS dental care; and what measures the Government have taken to increase this provision; [49675]

  (2) how many dentists there are in the NHS; and what action can be taken if someone cannot gain access to an NHS dentist. [49676]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for the provision of dental services in England. Provision of services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the devolved Administrations.

  22,439 national health service dentists were working in England at 30 September 2001. This includes dentists working in the general dental service (GDS), personal dental service, community and hospital dental services and salaried dentists in the GDS.

  This figure is on a headcount basis rather than whole time equivalent and includes those working part-time. Some dentists work in more than one dental service. These dentists will be counted in each service apart from dentists working in both PDS and GDS who are counted in the GDS only.

  Following the Prime Minister's pledge the systems are now operating for patients to obtain national health service dental treatment by phoning NHS Direct. NHS Direct is handling about 10,000 dental calls a month and directing patients on how to access local services. Where local dentists are not registering new patients, NHS Direct will be able to inform them of other local arrangements providing access to NHS dentistry.

  We are committed to ensuring that NHS dentistry is available to all who want it. In supporting this commitment the Government have invested over £100 million in the last two years. Significant resources have been invested in personal dental service pilots to improve access to NHS dentistry in areas with significant problems.

  Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1082W, regarding the square footage of the property that has been empty since July 2000, if the Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre in Birmingham is occupied and functioning. [50332]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre closed in July 2000, and has been unoccupied since its pending proposed re-use by an NHS trust.

  Senior House Officers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he received Professor Temple's report on the modernisation of the Senior House Officer grade; and when he will publish it. [49788]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: The Chief Medical Officer chaired a working group last year to advise UK Health Ministers on a modern structure for basic specialist medical training throughout the UK and on the resulting consequences for work force planning and service delivery. The working group comprised a wide range of interests including those from the profession, the national health service and education. Health Ministers expect to receive the Chief Medical Officer's report shortly when we will consider carefully a suitable publication date.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects NHS trusts in Lancashire to provide digital hearing aids; and if he will make a statement. [50541]

  Jacqui Smith
  Digital hearing aids are provided in Lancashire by the Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust, a first wave site. An announcement about which second wave NHS trusts will be providing digital hearing aids this year was made in my reply to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreman (Mr. Loughton) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 465W. Fairfield hospital, Bury and Southport and Ormskirk hospital did express an interest but were unable to gain the support of the respective primary care trusts. No other sites in Lancashire expressed interest in this round. In addition to the second wave sites, we hope to be able to provide at least a further 15 sites with the training and equipment they need to start fitting digital hearing aids from April 2003. Trusts in Lancashire, together with others in England, have an opportunity to participate in this next phase.

  Warrington Primary Care Trust
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names and areas of residence of those people who formed the interviewing panel for the appointment of non-executive directors of the Warrington PCT. [48962]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: The interview panel was chaired by Miss Rosemary Cooper, who is chair of Liverpool Women's Hospital Trust and lives in Liverpool. The other panel members were
  120W
  Mr. Robin Brown, recently appointed chair of Warring Primary Care Trust, who live in the Warrington, South constituency, and Mrs. Marlene Armitage, who was the independent panel member and lives in Oldham.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with(a) local and (b) national bodies on the failure of the Warrington PCT to appoint a chief executive; and if he will make a statement. [48957]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: The appointment of primary care trust chief executives is a matter for each individual PCT. However, I am aware that the Department's north west regional office placed advertisements in early December for the appointment of chief executives to seven prospective PCTs, including Warrington. It is disappointing that this has not resulted in an appointment in Warrington. However, I understand the PCT chair is actively seeking to appoint the high calibre person needed to take on the full range of responsibilities required for this large PCT and is currently re-advertising the post.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 January, (1) if he will make a statement on whether the board membership of the Warrington PCT is considered to reflect the geographical area it serves; [48963]

  (2) how many people from the (a) Warrington, North and (b) Warrington, South constituencies applied for positions as non-executive directors of the Warrington PCT; and what percentage of applicants from each constituency were (i) interviewed and (ii) appointed. [48960]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answers 15 April 2002]: Appointments to the boards of national health service trusts, strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and care trusts are now a matter for the NHS Appointments Commission. While the commission does not take into account or have information on constituency boundaries, it always aims to ensure as far as possible that board membership reflects the geographical area served by the NHS body. However, board members do not serve in any representative capacity and all appointments are made on the merits of the candidates involved, in accordance with the criteria determined by the Secretary of State and the Code of Practice issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Of the 51 applications received for non-executive appointments to the board of Warrington Primary Care Trust, 28 candidates (54.9 per cent.) live in the Warrington, North constituency and 23 in Warrington, South (45.1 per cent.). Of the 13 candidates subsequently interviewed, six (46.2 per cent.) live in Warrington, North and seven (53.8 per cent.) in Warrington, South. All of the three non-executives appointed to date live in Warrington, South. A further two appointments will be made shortly.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of applications for posts as non-executive directors of the Warrington PCT which were not acknowledged. [48961]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: All applications for appointment to the board of Warrington Primary Care Trust were acknowledged by the National Health Service Appointments Commission on 12 October 2001. Those applicants who were not called for interview

  121W
  will receive a further letter from the Appointments Commission very shortly explaining that they have been unsuccessful.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Warrington PCT is taking to tackle health inequalities in Warrington; and if he will make a statement. [48959]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Warrington identified health inequalities as one of its four key priorities in its Primary Care Trust application. Prior to its establishment, the PCT raised the profile of health inequality in Warrington with the Local Strategic Partnership and particularly through the Health and Wellbeing Partnership. A health inequality sub-group has been established as part of the Health and Wellbeing Partnership to bring a multi-agency focus and resource to tackle poor health in central Warrington. The PCT is working with partners to identify a Warrington Health Improvement Zone, which will form the focus for targeting resources in the future.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with board members of the Warrington PCT on their priorities for action; and if he will make a statement. [48958]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Throughout the consultation and preparatory period applicant primary care trusts have been able to contact officials at the former NHS Executive regional office to discuss any aspects of their proposal.

  All PCTs need to deliver against key national priorities such as those identified in the NHS Plan and National Service Frameworks. However PCT's, as the most local NHS organisation, are best place to understand the needs of their local population. As part of their role to improve the health of their populations, secure the provision of services and integrate health and social care, PCTs will identify priorities for action locally, in addition to national priorities that meet the specific needs of their population.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to correspondence dated 26 November 2001, from the hon. Member for Leominster on behalf of a constituent, Mr. Andrew P. Shaw, transferred from the Home Office in January. [48964]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: A reply was sent on 16 April

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1415W, on asylum seekers, what evaluation he has made of the protocols put in place by West Sussex Social Services Department and Sussex police for tackling unaccompanied asylum seeking children in danger of being victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation; and what recommendations he has made for other local authorities to adopt these protocols. [48646]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: We have been pleased to learn that the number of children going missing from West Sussex has substantially reduced as a
  122W
  consequence of the collaborative multi-agency approach that the Social Services Department, the police and others have taken. The Department is closely involved in supporting and leading developmental and collaborative work among all local authorities which have significant numbers of unaccompanied asylum seeking children.

  Photodynamic Therapy
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of people who will purchase photodynamic therapy privately in each of the next four years. [50057]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: The Department does not routinely collect information on treatment carried out privately and we are, therefore, unable to provide an estimate of the number of people who are likely to purchase photodynamic therapy privately in the next few years.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much ring-fenced money was made available for spending on mental health services on the Isle of Wight in financial years(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03. [50066]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: Funding is as follows:

  (a) 2000–01: £34,000 for child and adolescent mental health services.

  (b) 2001–02: no specific allocations.

  (c) 2002–03: £207,000 earmarked allocation for NHS Plan Mental Health.

  Total funds available for mental health services include those provided in the former Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority are and not solely for services on the Isle of Wight.

  Infant Vaccines
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require NICE to give comprehensive assessments of new infant vaccines. [51602]

  Yvette Cooper
  Progress in development of new vaccines is reviewed regularly by Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisations (JCVI), the independent expert committee on vaccines for the United Kingdom. This committee comprehensively assesses new vaccines as they become available. The agenda and working papers of JCVI are available to National Institute for Clinical Excellence. There are no plans at present to change this arrangement although this is kept under regular review.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research into health the Government have initiated following the recommendations of the Stewart report in respect of telecommunications masts. [51605]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Mobile Telephone Health Research (MTHR) Programme was set up in February 2001 following the publication of a report in May 2000 by an Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart FRS, FRSE on
  123W
  "Mobile Phones and Health". Radio signals from handsets were identified as a research priority because localised exposures of people using phones are in general appreciably higher than exposures to the whole body from base stations. In both cases, however, exposures need to comply with exposure guidelines.

  The first group of proposals agreed for funding by the Programme Management Committee has generally related to the areas of research identified in the Stewart Report. Although the main focus of much of the funded research relates to the use of mobile phones, in practice many of the experimental studies will also be valuable in providing evidence on any possible effects on people of exposures to radio frequency (RF) radiation from base stations. The agreed programme includes a study on exposures from the newer types of base station that are being introduced in urban areas. Details of research now underway are given on the MTHR website at www.mthr.org.uk.

  A second call for proposals was issued last year and applicants have been invited to submit more detailed research applications which will be considered by the Programme Management Committee in the summer. The aim of this call was to extend the range of research being carried out under the aegis of the MTHR programme and some of the proposals are of direct relevance to exposures to RF radiation from base stations.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average health expenditure per person was in(a) St. Helens, (b) Liverpool, (c) Manchester, (d) London, (e) England and (f) Wales in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000, (iv) 2001 and (v) the quarter to 31 March 2002. [48675]

  Mr. Hutton
  Expenditure per weighted head of population is shown in the table for St. Helens and Knowsley, Liverpool and Manchester health authorities, for all health authorities within the London regional office area and for England. Information for Wales is the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales. Information for 2001–02 is not available until the autumn.

  £

  Expenditure per weighted head

  Health body

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  594.89

  658.59

  749.06

  Liverpool HA

  613.87

  736.12

  887.35

  Manchester HA

  664.41

  773.81

  869.02

  London

  649.43

  764.49

  886.12

  England

  627.77

  721.10

  825.38

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure is taken from health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year.

  2. Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities.

  3. The expenditure is the total expenditure of the health authority and the commissioning expenditure of the primary care trusts within each health authority area. The majority of General Dental Services expenditure is not included in the health authority or primary care
  124W
  trust accounts and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board. The majority of drugs expenditure in 1998–99 and a smaller element in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority and not by health authorities.

  4. Health authorities and primary care trusts should account for their expenditure on a gross basis. This results in an element of double counting in 2000–01 where one body acts as the main commissioner and is then reimbursed by other bodies. The effect of this double counting within the answer cannot be identified.

  5. Some health authorities act as lead commissioners for particular specialties or training which inflates their figures when compared with others and also causes differences between years. Other factors may also distort the figures so the results are not all directly comparable with each other and with answers to similar questions for previous years.

  Source:

  Health authority audited accounts 1998–99

  Health authority audited summarisation forms 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01

  Weighted population estimates for 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Pertussis
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay the period time available to general practitioners to introduce the pre-school pertussis booster in 2001. [51603]

  Yvette Cooper
  In 2001, general practitioners were asked to switch from providing diphtheria tetanus vaccine to diphtheria tetanus pertussis vaccine as soon as they had received their supplies of the replacement vaccine.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham can expect answers to his Questions Ref.(a) 7597 (holding answer 15.10.01), (b) 7600 (holding answer 15.10.01), (c) 7606 (holding answer 15.10.01), (d) 24676 (holding answer 15.10.01), (e) 24341 (holding answer 15.10.01), (f) 12606 (holding answer 5.11.01), (g) 19224 (holding answer 29.11.01), (h) 26497 (holding answer 11.1.02), (i) 26496 (holding answer 11.1.02), (j) 26496 (holding answer 11.1.02), (k) 24681 (tabled 17.12.01), (/) 24310 (tabled 17.12.01) and (m) 24326 (holding answer 8.1.02). [37144]

  Yvette Cooper
  Pursuant to the reply given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 285W, replies to the hon. Member's questions were given as follows:

  7597–12 March 2002, Official Report, column 1066W

  7600–11 March 2002, Official Report, column 829W

  7606–11 March 2002, Official Report, column 846W

  24676–11 March 2002, Official Report, column 1062W

  24341– 12 March 2002, Official Report, column 1062W

  12606–12 March 2002, Official Report, column 990W

  19224–22 January 2002, Official Report, column 755W

  26497–26 February 2002, Official Report, column 1061W

  26496–11 March 2002, Official Report, column 811W

  24681–13 February 2002, Official Report, column 473W

  24310–25 February 2002, Official Report, column 973W

  24326–12 February 2002, Official Report, column 321W.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.
Lord Foster of Thames Bank—Took the Oath.
Lord Blyth of Rowington—Took the Oath.

Special Advisers
Lord Sheldonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they are giving to the role of specialist advisers following recent remarks by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the Government plan to issue a discussion paper to invite views on what should be included in legislation for the Civil Service. It will take full account of the views expressed by Sir Richard Wilson in his speech of 26th March on the Civil Service.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Sir Richard Wilson has pointed out that in what he calls his 'junior years", he came close to being instructed by special advisers and that that was a very serious matter? More recently, the Select Committee on Public Administration has taken evidence which demonstrates that special advisers have come close to taking positions at higher levels within the machinery of government. Is that not a rather serious matter, given that the Government do not allow special advisers to appear before Select Committees? If special advisers are to hold such powers, is it not essential that the Government relax their views and allow advisers to
2
appear before Select Committees in order to explain what it is they do for their money and in order to meet their responsibilities?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, it is for Ministers to decide who should appear on their behalf before Select Committees. I believe that the case the noble Lord may be referring to related to one of our unpaid advisers who was a Member of this House. All the arguments implied by the noble Lord will be fully taken into account in the consultation which has been planned on the basis of a paper to be issued shortly.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is it still the case that special advisers cannot give instructions to civil servants except for two who have been specially nominated for that purpose? Is that still the situation?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, that is indeed the case.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, over recent years, we have moved dangerously far away from the concept of the man in Whitehall knowing best to the concept of the man in Whitehall knowing nothing at all? In that respect, does the Minister join in the general welcome for the appointment of a career civil servant, Sir Andrew Turnbull, to the post of Head of the Civil Service? Does the Minister not agree that, as well as producing Civil Service legislation, it would be a good idea to give Sir Andrew a mandate to create a Civil Service for the 21st century that is flexible enough to use outside talent, but which also combines the old ethos of public service and political neutrality? Those have been the strengths of the British Civil Service for 130 years.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I do not believe that it is necessary to give Sir Andrew any kind of mandate because, as I say, a consultation document is to be issued and every opportunity will be given to noble Lords and others to set out their views on the way forward for the Civil Service. I readily concur with

3
all the positive comments that have been made with regard to the Civil Service. In responding perhaps I may also pay tribute to the excellent work that has been carried out by Sir Richard Wilson over the past four years.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the tone of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Sheldon was rather at variance with what was said by Sir Richard Wilson in his speech of 26th March, during which he commented to the effect that special advisers have a legitimate contribution to make to the working of government? He went on to say that he believed it was right for Ministers to be able to access special advisers to act as their political eyes and ears, to help departments understand their particular Minister, to work alongside officials on the Minister's behalf and to handle party political aspects of government business. In other words, I believe that Sir Richard Wilson endorsed the principle of special advisers and paid tribute to the work they do.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I would follow my noble friend by suggesting that noble Lords should take the opportunity to read what Sir Richard Wilson had to say. No doubt his speech will inform the documents being drawn up by the Government and will inform the discussions during the consultation period that is to follow.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it may be rather a long time since I was a Minister, but at that time a clear distinction was drawn between those specialist advisers brought in to disseminate their special knowledge and experience in their advice to departmental Ministers, and political advisers, who were able to help Ministers with the functions just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. Is it not desirable that those very clear distinctions should be re-established? I refer, for example, to the rule that political advisers should resign the moment an election is called.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, it is indeed the case that they resign when an election is called. I take the noble Lord's point about the distinction between political advisers and expert advisers. That will be one of the issues in the forthcoming consultation.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is it not the Government's insistence on centrally managed command and control of micro targets throughout the public services that explains both why the targets are rarely met and why so many people feel that the impartiality and neutrality of the Civil Service is being compromised?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I do not believe that to be the case. The role of special advisers is in the development and presentation of policy. There are 81 special advisers and a senior Civil Service of almost 3,500, so there is no shortage of competent civil servants to drive policy.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it does not help the interests of transparency and accountability when the officials involved, whether paid or not, refuse to attend Select Committees of either House, and that the Government do not help by advising them not to? Will this be considered in the review to which my noble friend referred?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, it is an issue which could no doubt be raised. However, I would again suggest that noble Lords should support the primacy of government Ministers in deciding who should represent them at Select Committees.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, will the Government consider supporting the request that I have made to the Committee on Standards in Public Life—that is, that all those who advise government, including prime ministerial advisers, should be obliged to give evidence to committees of both Houses, and that we should change the rules of Parliament to oblige Members of this House to give evidence to Select Committees and, at the same time, to oblige government Ministers to give evidence to Select Committees of this House?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I readily accept this will be an important issue in the consultation that is to follow. I am sure that the noble Lord will put it as eloquently then as he does now.

Zambia and Zimbabwe: Recent Elections
2.45 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwoodasked Her Majesty's Government:
What policies they are pursuing internationally in respect of the elections in Zambia and Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, our policy towards both Zambia and Zimbabwe, in the aftermath of their respective elections, is to promote democracy, prosperity, good governance and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while everyone recognises the fraudulence of the election in Zimbabwe because of the violence that accompanied it, very little attention has been paid to the December election in Zambia, which was roundly condemned by the European Union monitors, by the Carter Center in the USA and by the local monitors? Is it not time that we had a consistent policy within the FCO, including our trade and aid policy, to encourage genuine democracies and penalise the fraudsters? Should we not pursue that policy within the EU and the Commonwealth?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our policy is entirely consistent. While a number of comparisons have been made between Zambia and Zimbabwe, it is important

5
to recognise that the circumstances are different. Although I accept the noble Lord's point that the European Union made it absolutely clear that the result of the election was not an accurate reflection of the will of the Zambian people, the elections in Zambia were calm, international observers were present—indeed, they had been invited by the Zambian Government—and there was a vigorous free press. That contrasts strongly with what happened in Zimbabwe, where we know that the elections were characterised by violence and intimidation, there were restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, and there was manipulation of the electoral administration and court. Immediately after the elections in Zambia we had no ministerial contact with the new Zambian Government. We have entered into an EU dialogue under article 8. The House will know that the article 96 dialogue with the Government of Zimbabwe has failed. We shall continue to pursue a multilateral course in respect of Zimbabwe but, given what President Mwanawasa has done in terms of trying to tackle corruption—and while we remain robust with Zambia about the need for free and fair elections—we are engaging in a different kind of dialogue with that government.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, given that every day brings more evidence of the way in which the recent Zimbabwean elections were blatantly rigged —indeed, the Minister has just reinforced that point—what are we going to do to help the oppressed people of Zimbabwe to achieve fresh elections? Do we favour dialogue with Mugabe or merely that every conceivable kind of pressure should be put on him to ensure that elections are re-run? Now that there is a hint of peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo, will that affect the situation in Zimbabwe given that much of Mugabe's money came from that source?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as to our continuing strategy with Zimbabwe, the South African and Nigerian Governments are pursuing a process of dialogue between the MDC and Zanu PF. This was mentioned in the outcome of the Commonwealth troika earlier this year which agreed to suspend Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth. We are supporting whatever dialogue we can. As to our own relationship with Zimbabwe, we continue to work through our EU colleagues and we continue to talk to our SADC partners, the United States and others about the continuing violence. Ten members of the opposition have been killed since the elections and we remain concerned about that. We continue to put pressure on Zimbabwe. The noble Lord may be aware that the EU put a motion to the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva last week, which unfortunately was not taken because a no action motion was carried.
Noble Lords will be aware that the inter-Congolese dialogue process on peace in the DRC failed over the weekend. We are concerned about that and we shall continue to do what we can to ensure that all the parties in the Great Lakes conflict abide by the decisions that have already been taken.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, following the Minister's earlier Answer, now that dialogue has been entered into with the new Zambian administration, do the Government recognise that administration?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that we have said in this House before that we recognise states,, not governments.
Lord Elton: My Lords, has not Mr Mugabe already proved himself to be entirely immune to persuasion by dialogue? What other pressures are to be brought to bear on him to secure a democratic state in Zimbabwe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have said consistently that any pressure that Robert Mugabe and the Government of Zimbabwe take notice of will come from within the continent of Africa. It is important that we support initiatives from within Africa such as the current dialogue process promoted by the South Africans and Nigerians. As for continuing pressures, noble Lords will know that a number of countries now have sanctions against Zimbabwe, including asset freezing and travel baits. In addition, I mentioned the motion that the European Union sought to bring last week on human rights in Zimbabwe. There is also a continuing Commonwealth process, which will be reviewed after a year.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with reference to the economic measures taken against Zimbabwe, has the Minister noticed that the regime has just imported more than 250,000 dollars-worth of luxury Mercedes limousines, including an armour-plated one for the use of President Mugabe? Should not the European Union sanctions be extended to cover such goods, which are intended for the use of the leaders of the regime?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have always made it clear that whatever sanctions are put in place should not affect the poor of Zimbabwe. I completely take the noble Lord's point about the importation of luxury vehicles. The European Union has made it clear that we shall go back to the issue of measures at the GAC in May. We continue to be concerned about the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe, but we shall do all that we can to hit the members of the regime. That is where our sanctions are targeted.

Police Retention
2.53 p.m.
Lord Burnhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to require policemen who wish to continue to serve after the end of their normal term to sign a four-year contract.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's long-standing interest in the issue, but I have to tell him that no final decisions have been taken on the details of a police retention scheme. The Police Negotiating Board is

7
considering a range of reform measures, which include flexible arrangements to allow managers to retain officers entitled to retire with maximum benefits where they wish to do so.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, my concern, which is widely broadcast in the police service, is that the Government will require a four-year service extension. Does the Minister agree that that is undesirable? Does he also agree that if police officers stay on after the end of their normal service, the Government are getting them cheap, because all that they have to pay is the difference between their salary and their pension rights?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I understand the reasons behind the noble Lord's Question and his supplementary, but the whole issue is wrapped up in the current negotiations. Given that there is a conciliation process going on—indeed, there is to be a conciliation meeting this Friday, 26th April, before a full meeting of the board on 1st May—it would be counter-productive to try to debate on the Floor of the House the pros and cons of a negotiating process covering a range of police pay issues.

Sinn Fein MPs' Access to House of Lords
2.55 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have expressed, or intend to express, any views to the House of Lords' Offices Committee about where, if anywhere, Members of the House of Commons, who have offices there but have not taken the oath, may go in the House of Lords.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government have not expressed any views to the House of Lords' Offices Committee and have no intention of expressing a view. The privilege granted to Members of another place in your Lordships' House are matters for the Offices Committee and the House itself to decide.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which I assume she is giving as Deputy Leader of the House. Will she confirm that Members of the other place may normally take parties along the Line of Route, they may stand at the Bar of the House, they may walk the corridors, they may use the Library and they have access to the Members' Gallery without security checks? Since she has said that this is a House of Lords matter, does she agree that there is no reason why this House should follow the decision of the House of Commons? What interim instructions have been given to staff pending the decision of the relevant committee should Sinn Fein Members request access or try to gain access to this House? Will she undertake that this
8
House will have a debate and an opportunity to vote on the matter, as some of us strongly object to the decision made by the House of Commons if it affects this place?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I confirm that I am answering the Question in the absence of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, who is unable to be in the House today. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is right. As the Members concerned have been given passes, they have access to public areas of the House of Lords. In addition, it is usual for Members of another place to have access to the four places that the noble Lord mentioned in his supplementary question. Pending a decision of your Lordships' House, access to those areas is currently not available to the Members of another place in question. Those matters will be discussed at the Administration and Works Sub-Committee on 30th April and will then come before the Offices Committee, which will consider its recommendation on 14th May. In due course, that will be referred to your Lordships' House in the usual way so that there will be an opportunity for your Lordships to take a decision on these matters.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear very much in mind that many of us feel that it would be an intolerable insult to those of our Members who have suffered at the hands of the IRA if murderers, apologists for murder and associates of murderers were to come anywhere near this place?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I recognise that this is an issue on which feelings run very high. I am sure that all your Lordships recognise that there are those in this House who have suffered cruelly from terrorist activities. However, I remind your Lordships that we are engaged in a peace process at the moment and that many will wish to support that peace process in the way that was the case in another place. I stress that it will be a matter for your Lordships to decide. That opportunity will be presented in due course.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the noble Baroness ensure that the committee considering these matters is given access to the information held by the security authorities concerning the intelligence-gathering of the IRA, which continues, and its purchase of modern weapons from Russia, which also continues, so that the committee can take a view on whether the IRA's partners, and possibly the Members in the other place, are fit to be trusted to come to this end of the corridor?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not think that there would have been any question of allowing access to individuals thought to be a threat either in another place or in your Lordships' House. Of course I hope that all the available information that can be put before your Lordships is put before your Lordships, but I remind the House that some matters will, I am sure, be coming from very sensitive

9
intelligence sources and may not be readily available. I can only repeat that the sensitivity of the issue is fully recognised. However, not only will the Offices Committee have the opportunity to discuss it, your Lordships will have the opportunity to discuss it in due course thereafter.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in principle, it would be unfortunate if this House were to adopt different practices regarding Members of another place than that place itself adopted? Would that not reflect badly on the overall running of the Palace of Westminster, and would there not have to be exceptionally good reasons for doing it? Is she also aware that at least one of the Members of Parliament in question is a Minister in Northern Ireland and serves in its Executive? The way in which some of the innuendoes have been cast today does not do the peace process any good.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree in part with some of my noble friend's comments. I agree, for example, that it is not right to refer in your Lordships' House to Members of another place as they have sadly been referred to during these exchanges. However, I do not agree that, having said that the Government will not be expressing a view on the matter, I can now express a view as a member of the Government that would effectively reverse my original answer. I can only tell noble Lords that, in the first instance, they will have an opportunity to express their views in the Offices Committee. The leaders of all the political parties represented in your Lordships' House, the Convenor of the Cross-Benchers and the Whips will be on that Committee and will be able to express their views. Thereafter, the matter will come before your Lordships' House and every noble Lord will have the opportunity to express a view on it.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can the Minister say whether those individuals will be permitted those rights in the interim before the view of the House has been expressed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thought that I had said that, in the interim, the passes allow access only to the public places in your Lordships' House. The issues of particular sensitivity mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—standing at the Bar of the House to listen to our debates; use of the Library reading rooms; use of the Members' Gallery; and sponsored visits on the Line of Route round your Lordships' House—will be considered by the Offices Committee on 14th May.
Lord Roper: My Lords, without wishing to pre-empt discussion in the Administration and Works Sub-Committee and in the Offices Committee, may I say that we on these Benches believe that the decision to make the interim ban and to put the issue to the appropriate committees of the House is the correct one?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the Chief Whip for the Liberal Democrats make such a very sensitive contribution.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, can the Minister say whether passes have been given to staff, researchers or assistants of those Members of another place who are part of Sinn Fein? If so, has there been any vetting or background checks?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, what I can tell your Lordships is that the applications for passes for researchers for the Members in question are being dealt with in the same way as they are for any other Member of another place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will that public access include the offices or the environs of the offices of former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland who now serve in this House and may be at particular risk?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, Members of another place have access to the public parts of your Lordships' House. The public parts of your Lordships' House do not include the particular corridors on which particular Ministers, former Ministers or Members of the Opposition parties work. The sensitive issues are those that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, mentioned and I have repeated in answering the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we all understand the needs of the peace process. However, does not the noble Baroness understand that what repulses people across the country is the sight of people elected to Parliament who refuse to take their seat but who still receive hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money while at the same time carrying out some of the activities which my noble friend Lord Tebbit has just mentioned? Do the Government still believe that another place came to the right decision?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear my answer. This is a matter for another place, and another place debated it. Another place also voted by 322 votes to 189 votes that they should go ahead on the basis with which all noble Lords are familiar.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.

11
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Assets Recovery Agency]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 263, line 34, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3), there shall be no more than 10 performance targets for any financial year and these targets shall relate specifically to the functions of the Agency."
The noble Baroness said: While the issue of performance targets set each year by the director of the assets recovery agency was the subject of considerable debate in another place, we felt it important to revisit this question and probe the Minister on whether the Government have thought more about it—particularly given that our concerns met with significant sympathy from the Government's own Back-Benchers.
We would like reassurances from the Minister that this open-ended desire for performance targets in Paragraph 8(3)(b) of Schedule 1—targets which need not relate to the director's objectives—will not in practice mean a plethora of targets that realistically cannot be met and indeed might compromise the entire function of the assets recovery agency. We are keen to ensure that the director will focus on a discrete number of realisable targets that genuinely contribute to the agency's effective operation. More importantly, we hope that that operation concentrates on the recovery of assets as opposed to economic targets. Although it would be nice to think that the assets recovery agency could pay its own expenses, that is not the aim of the exercise. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: As the noble Baroness said, this issue has been discussed in another place—as have many other issues. The Bill was in another place for a long time and many of the issues which we shall be discussing have already been discussed there. To avoid repetition, I shall not make that point again. The Government are re-examining many of those issues.
The issue of agency targets has in fact been discussed on two previous occasions, and I understand that an amendment identical to Amendment No. 1 was tabled then. Although it is too early to say with any certainty what the targets will be, it might help our deliberations if I were to set out our broad thinking on the issue. Measures of the agency's output are likely to include targets relating to the number of confiscation orders obtained by the agency and the value of those orders; the number of successful civil recovery actions and the amounts recovered through that route; the number of successful taxation cases and the amounts recovered through that route; international co-operation over confiscation orders; the performance of the centre of excellence; the agency's financial performance, volume of output, quality of the service and efficiency and so forth; and the agency's involvement with the priorities of the Secretary of State and other government priorities.
12
We do not want to restrict the director's ability to draw up targets in terms of the number he may set or, indeed, to what they should relate. I fully accept the concerns expressed about a huge number of targets. However, at the end of the day in this case it is for the director to decide how many targets there should be according to his priorities and what he thinks he will be able to deliver. Frankly, if the director thinks that he should have 15, 20 or 30 targets, he should be able to put that number into his annual plan. We also anticipate specific targets being set in relation to Northern Ireland, which would increase the number of targets required.
The amendment would also require that the performance targets should relate specifically to the functions of the agency. The current provision requires the director to set objectives for the year but does not limit the targets he sets to those objectives. That is because he may want to set performance targets relating to functions which do not appear in his high-level objectives for the year. Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1 makes clear that while the director will be permitted to exercise only the functions he is given by statute, the annual plan must set out how he is to exercise those functions. In other words, it is not possible for the director to set performance targets that bear no relation to his functions. That is important because his functions are specifically laid down in the Bill.
The director will draw up his performance targets in his capacity as head of a non-ministerial department. That is not unique in Whitehall; there are several. It will be for him, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, to decide how many targets are appropriate. We should not place restrictions on the director in primary legislation.
Having given the noble Baroness an idea of the thinking behind the targets—certainly, we do not want to be prescriptive—I believe that, in the end, we should leave the matter to the director.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. Indeed, the fact that he has outlined some of the inclinations that underlie this clause is helpful to us. It has perhaps encouraged the Government to focus upon our concerns about a plethora of targets, which we all know from experience compromises the effective workings of any such organisation. I thank the Minister and, on that basis, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 264, line 20, at end insert—
"In section 15(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 insert—
"(e) he is the Director of the Assets Recovery Agency";
In section 123(1) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 insert—
"(e) he is the Director of the Assets Recovery Agency"."

13
The noble Baroness said: We believe that Amendment No. 2 is a straightforward amendment. It was suggested to us by the Law Society of Scotland. It provides for the disqualification of the director of the assets recovery agency from membership of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. The Law Society of Scotland believes, and we in turn believe, that the amendment is necessary to fill the lacuna in the present drafting of the Bill. As the Bill stands, the director of the assets recovery agency would be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, there is no provision made for disqualification from the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am sure that the noble Baroness will be pleased if I say that, as was the position when identical amendments were tabled in the other place, we are in agreement with the principle behind them. Let there be no doubt about that. There is no obvious reason why the director could potentially become a Member of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly 'while he could not be a Member of the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland Assembly. We promised in the other place that we would table amendments to the Bill in your Lordships' House if that was appropriate.
However, we have not done so because that would not be in accordance with the rationale behind the relevant provisions of the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act. It is worth putting on record the rationale, which was that, except as provided by the legislation establishing them, the new bodies should be left free to determine which office holders are disqualified from membership of that particular body. That is done by way of Orders in Council; in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification) Order 1999, and in Wales by the National Assembly for Wales (Disqualification) Order 1999.
Our view is, therefore, that the issue of disqualification from membership will best be achieved by means of amendments made to the relevant disqualification orders by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. That is subject to agreement by the devolved administrations that that would be desirable in the interests of consistency and political impartiality in this new important office.
I understand that the existing disqualification order for the Scottish Parliament is to be reviewed with the intention of a new order being made in good time before the next Scottish parliamentary elections in May 2003. I am able to give an undertaking that the director of the new assets recovery agency will be included in the new disqualification order when that time comes.
The position in respect of the Welsh Assembly is under consideration. It may be that disqualification is agreed in the interests of consistency. However, as the Welsh Assembly has no function in relation to crime or criminal justice—unlike the UK Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish
14
Parliament—the question of disqualification is not quite as straightforward. I believe that it is right to leave it to the Secretary of State for Wales to bring forward a draft order if he agrees that disqualification would be appropriate. In the circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. It is seductive, but on balance I believe that the matter should be left to the two bodies concerned. They have the means and the legal process with which to carry it out if they so choose. I have given a commitment in respect of the Scottish Parliament.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The answer given by the Minister was extremely interesting and helpful. I expect that my noble friend thinks the same; I do not know. In future can the Government consult with the devolved bodies when they are drafting Bills and such a matter arises? I can see why the Minister answered as he did. However, can the Government consult so that parliamentary time is not wasted here and in another place by having to answer such questions? Without my noble friend's question we would not have known of such matters. The Government could save themselves and noble Lords trouble. In future, would it be possible for the Government to think of that when drafting Bills and assure people of the position at Second Reading?
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: As a semi-outsider, I am a little puzzled. I understand why it should be a matter for the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly to decide who is eligible to become a Member. However, I am puzzled as to why it is not open to this House to decide that the director shall not apply to become a Member of either body, if, in the view of this place, it is undesirable that he should do so. That does not trespass on anyone's toes, as far as I know, except the director's.
Lord Rooker: I am not sure that I can reply specifically to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. This is an important matter. As regards the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, perhaps I may say that others will listen to what is said here on drafting. I do not know what the protocol would be if a Westminster Parliament Bill was drafted in such a way as to pre-empt a decision which was rightly one for the Scottish Parliament. As it has its own disqualification procedure, it should come under its own criminal justice system. I am all in favour of not having to repeat matters and of not wasting parliamentary time on a matter which could have been thought through before. It may be that a Bill is changed as it passes through the Westminster Parliament, which could change the rules for what is required. To pre-empt that would not make sense.
There seems to be a procedure, both in Wales and Scotland, for disqualifying from membership of those bodies someone who is in a high-profile, important public position where absolute political impartiality is required to the extent that the person shall not be a member of those two bodies. I believe that that is best

15
left to those two bodies. I shall probably need to take advice on the matter and, if need be, will write to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, on the point that he raised.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. However, we would not be happy if the director could sit as a Member of the Welsh Assembly. Is it the Government's view that that would be acceptable?
Lord Rooker: I have made the point that this is an incredibly important position. Anyone who reads the powers in the Bill will recognise that. It is a public position. The utmost political impartiality is required. The nature of the functions of the Welsh Assembly are not the same as those of the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Westminster Parliament. Therefore, one must look at that narrow area. It will be for the Secretary of State for Wales to make that decision and bring forward an order if necessary. But the point is well made that, in order to show crystal-clear political impartiality, the situation might look bad, but as we all know perceptions are sometimes as important as the words in the statute.
We have the power to provide that the director should not be a Member of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, but as the Order in Council procedure is there we should use it. There is a process for dealing with the issue.
Baroness Buscombe: Having started out thinking that this was a fairly straightforward amendment, I am deeply concerned that someone could be a Member of the Welsh Assembly and at the same time hold down such an important position as the director of the assets recovery agency. However remote that possibility is, it could present an enormous conflict of interest. I also share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that it seems grossly unjust that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly should enjoy such freedom while we, in this Chamber, do not.
We shall consider the amendment with care. We shall most probably return to it on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)moved Amendment No. 3:
After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
"LIFESTYLE OFFENCES
Drug trafficking
1 (1) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38)—

(a) section 4(2) or (3) (unlawful production or supply of controlled drugs);

(b) section 5(3) (possession of controlled drug with intent to supply);

(c) section 8 (permitting certain activities relating to controlled drugs);

16

(d) section 20 (assisting in or inducing the commission outside the UK of an offence punishable under a corresponding law).

(2) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) if it is committed in connection with a prohibition or restriction on importation or exportation which has effect by virtue of section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38)—

(a) section 50(2) or (3) (improper importation of goods);

(b) section 68(2) (exportation of prohibited or restricted goods);

(c) section 170 (fraudulent evasion).

(3) An offence under either of the following provisions of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (c. 5)—

(a) section 12 (manufacture or supply of a substance for the time being specified in Schedule 2 to that Act);

(b) section 19 (using a ship for illicit traffic in controlled drugs).

Money laundering
2 An offence under either of the following provisions of this Act—

(a) section 327 (concealing etc criminal property);

(b) section 328 (assisting another to retain criminal property).

People trafficking
3 An offence under section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (assisting illegal entry etc).
Arms trafficking
4 (1) An offence under either of the following provisions of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) if it is committed in connection with a firearm or ammunition—

(a) section 68(2) (exportation of prohibited goods);

(b) section 170 (fraudulent evasion).

(2) An offence under section 3(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27) (dealing in firearms or ammunition by way of trade or business).
(3) In this paragraph "firearm" and "ammunition" have the same meanings as in section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27).
Counterfeiting
5 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (c. 45)—

(a) section 14 (making counterfeit notes or coins);

(b) section 15 (passing etc counterfeit notes or coins);

(c) section 16 (having counterfeit notes or coins);

(d) section 17 (making or possessing materials or equipment for counterfeiting).

Intellectual property
6 (1) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)—

(a) section 107(1) (making or dealing in an article which infringes copyright);

(b) section 107(2) (making or possessing an article designed or adapted for making a copy of a copyright work);

(c) section 198(1) (making or dealing in an illicit recording);

(d) section 297A (making or dealing in unauthorised decoders).

(2) An offence under section 92(1), (2) or (3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (e. 26) (unauthorised use etc of trade mark).
Pimps and brothels
7 (1) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69)—

(a) section 2 (procuring a woman by threats);

(b) section 3 (procuring a woman by false pretences);

17

(c) section 9 (procuring a defective woman to have sexual intercourse);

(d) section 22 (procuring a woman for prostitution);

(e) section 24 (detaining a woman in a brothel);

(f) section 28 (causing or encouraging prostitution etc of girl under 16);

(g) section 29 (causing or encouraging prostitution of defective woman);

(h) section 30 (man living on earnings of prostitution);

(i) section 31 (woman exercising control over prostitute);

(j) section 33 (keeping a brothel);

(k) section 34 (letting premises for use as brothel).

(2) An offence under section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (c. 60) (living on the earnings of male prostitute).
Blackmail
8 An offence under section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) (blackmail).
Inchoate offences
9 (1) An offence of attempting, conspiring or inciting the commission of an offence specified in this Schedule.
(2) An offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of such an offence."
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 3 is of importance and of interest to Members of the Committee because it determines which single offences will attract the criminal lifestyle provisions and therefore the application of the assumptions in Clause 11 and its equivalents in Parts 3 and 4 for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Marshalled List is quite long. It will therefore be convenient to consider with this amendment the other amendments on Clause 75, so that we can have a wide-ranging debate on this issue.
Technically, the effect of the government amendments is as follows: Amendments Nos. 3 and 81 transfer the existing criminal lifestyle offences—that is to say, drug trafficking and money laundering offences—to a new schedule, to which additional offences have been added. The proposal is to introduce a new power to add or remove further offences to the schedule by means of Amendment No. 86. Clause 451 is being amended to make this power subject to the affirmative resolution procedure by means of Amendments Nos. 293 and 296. That is in accordance with the recommendation of your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
At the same time, Amendment No. 81 deletes the previous proposal in Clause 75(2)(c) to proceed by way of regulation. Therefore, it is a schedule plus a power by order which is subject to affirmative resolution instead of the present provision for regulations.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that the Government have taken a very careful approach to this exercise. We have been mindful that the Bill as presently drafted already allows for a conviction for an offence to attract the assumptions where the offence has been committed over a period of six months or where it forms part of a course of criminal conduct as specified in Clause 75(3). We have taken the approach that offences should be included in the schedule only where a single conviction for that offence can normally be regarded as indicative of a criminal lifestyle.Members of the Committee may
18
be aware that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State provided in the other place at the end of last year a list of the types of conduct which the Government were considering for possible inclusion in the schedule. A copy of that, as I think I said at Second Reading, is available in the Library of the House.
However, on further consideration, the Government have decided that it would not be appropriate to include some of this conduct in the schedule either because there were technical difficulties in including certain offences or because we did not think after all that they were normally indicative of a criminal lifestyle.
I shall first discuss which of the offences fall into that category; that is, those which have been omitted from the list. First, there is forgery of travel and other immigration documents. In the case of the forgery of travel and other immigration documents and conspiracy to defraud the Crown, the offences that currently relate to this conduct are very broad. The Government think that they will catch many offenders whom one would not normally regard as having a criminal lifestyle. Forgery offences, for example, could catch a person who forged a student card for the purpose of obtaining admission to a pub or a club.
Secondly, there is child pornography. Of course that is a very serious kind of crime. It may be indicative of a criminal lifestyle. It is not acquisitive but psychopathological. Most of the traffic in such material that goes on across the Internet is believed to be on an exchange or no-fee basis. The lack of an acquisitive element leads us to conclude that the offence is not indicative of a criminal lifestyle, as the term is understood in the Bill. So it has been omitted from the schedule.
With regard to bribery, prosecutors note that it often seems to be an isolated event related to particular and temporary circumstances. Against that background it is difficult to justify the inclusion of that offence in the schedule.
Similarly, insider dealing is not thought to be any more indicative of a criminal lifestyle than an offence such as theft, which is not included. It is not an activity typical of organised crime. The criminal law on insider dealing also works alongside a civil code of market conduct and rules of investment exchanges. That regime is designed to ensure that insider dealing does not occur on a systematic basis. So it is again omitted.
Terrorism has of course given us a great deal of food for thought. The list circulated in the other place talks in terms of including terrorist funding offences. But, on careful reflection, we have decided that it would not be appropriate to include these offences. They are very much concerned with the idea of raising funds for use in terrorism. As such, it is difficult to see how they could be regarded as indicative of the kind of offender who is involved in acquisitive crime.
Examination of that issue has lead to an acute awareness of the extent to which terrorists are involved in racketeering for their own benefit, particularly in Northern Ireland. The Government believe that it

19
would be wrong to overlook the evidence of their involvement in other acquisitive crime. As a result, we have been exploring which if any, offences in the Terrorism Act 2000 might justify the assumption in the case of these individuals of a criminal lifestyle. In the light of that exercise, a further amendment to the schedule will be presented for the consideration of Members of the Committee on Report.
So far as concerns money laundering, I should mention that in transferring the offences of money laundering from Clause 75(2)(b) into the schedule, we have decided not to include Clause 329 of the Bill—that is the acquisition, use and possession of criminal property—because we recognise that that offence is very broad and that there will be many cases where it is not indicative of a criminal lifestyle. Clauses 327—concealment of criminal property—and 328, dealing with certain arrangements, are, however, properly included.
I have set out—I hope that Members of the Committee do not think at too much length—the thinking on the omitted offences partly because the Committee will want to know why certain offences are not included but partly also to emphasise the cautious approach which the Government have taken to the issue. The Government are well aware of the consequences that can flow from a finding of a criminal lifestyle. For that reason, where there is doubt as to whether an offence should be specified as a criminal lifestyle offence the approach has been to exclude it. It will, of course, be possible to add offences at a later date or even remove them by means of the order-making power if the Secretary of State considers that justified and if Parliament so approves by affirmative resolution.
I turn now to the offences listed in the new schedule. In the main, they are self-explanatory, but I should like to make a few general comments about them. People trafficking is an issue of international as well as national concern, and I should be surprised if there were any controversy about including it in the schedule. Similarly, arms trafficking, like people trafficking and drug trafficking, is lucrative criminal conduct typical of organised crime.
I should perhaps add that we will need to revisit the facilitation offence in the light of the new offences in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill recently introduced in another place. If it is appropriate to specify offences in the new Bill, we shall do so.
The involvement of professional criminals in the manufacture and circulation of counterfeit currency and other merchandise is well known and the counterfeiting offences are included for that reason.
The reasoning underlying the inclusion of piracy offences—piracy in the sense of intellectual property, rather than any other kind—is similar. They are offences from which we know that professional criminals are making a handsome living. The offences are not particularly serious in sentencing terms, but we are here concerned with their capacity to generate
20
revenue for those committing them. They are not offences that are committed accidentally or in isolation.
In relation to pimps and brothels, perhaps I may mention that at least one large confiscation order has been made under current legislation following a multiple conviction for brothel-keeping offences. The inclusion of sexual offences as a whole reflects our desire to attack the large profits made from sexual exploitation in all its forms.
Finally, I should make some comment on the offence of blackmail, which was not in the list circulated in the other place but which the Government now think should be included. The label of the offence may be slightly misleading. As Members of the Committee will be aware, English law makes no distinction between blackmail and extortion. I make it clear that the target of our attention in this instance is what people commonly refer to as extortion. That form of criminal conduct is quintessentially associated with organised crime, protection rackets and paramilitary racketeering in Northern Ireland.
The Government believe that the new schedule is a major improvement to the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will agree. It places the criminal lifestyle regime on a more coherent, rounded footing and will expose acquisitive criminals to more effective treatment than is presently possible. We intend to propose a list of parallel offences relating to Northern Ireland and Scotland.
I hope that in the light of my explanation, the Committee will support the new schedule, together with Amendments Nos. 81, 86, 293 and 296.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: To clarify one point, would I be right to assume that where there was a single instance of insider dealing from which a substantial profit had been made, that profit could be recovered by a confiscation order on the basis of particular conduct or under a civil recovery order?
Lord Goldsmith: Yes, the noble Lord is entirely right. The provision does not affect particular criminal conduct; we are here concerned with offences that attract the general conduct provision and the assumptions that then apply.
We shall oppose the Motion that Clauses 88 and 89 stand part of the Bill, because they were simply a way to include drug trafficking and money laundering offences, as we now propose to do in the schedule.
Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 and 190 would prevent a confiscation order from being made following a conviction in the magistrates' court unless the offences were punishable by imprisonment. Amendment No. 74 would prevent a confiscation order from being made following a conviction in the magistrates' court unless the offences were triable on indictment. In other words, it would exclude either way offences.
The effect of Amendment No. 75 would be that when it committed a defendant to the Crown Court for confiscation, the magistrates' court would not also

21
have to state whether or not it would also have committed the defendant for sentencing under its existing powers. That might have the effect of limiting a Crown Court dealing with an offender committed to it for confiscation to the sentencing powers of the magistrates' court, even if the case were one in which the magistrates' court would have committed the offender to the Crown Court for sentence.
Many of the reasons why the Government oppose those amendments have already been covered in another place. I refer Members of the Committee to the Hansard reports of 15th November 2001 at cols. 107 to 116 and of 29th November 2001 at cols. 406 to 411. Our position on the issue is straightforward. The idea that one may exclude from confiscation any class of criminal conduct is unacceptable in principle. Apart from the practical possibility of significant proceeds being derived from some summary offending, that would be tantamount to saying that we have no objection to offenders retaining the proceeds of their crimes. If conduct constitutes a criminal offence—as summary conduct does—its proceeds should be liable to confiscation.
Indeed, the coverage of summary offending in confiscation legislation is nothing new. The Hodgson committee, whose 1984 report on the proceeds of crime and their recovery underlay the first confiscation legislation, was not only concerned with serious offending. The committee was also exercised with:
"contraventions of regulations that involve little or no public obloquy but where the profits made from the offence far outweigh, in many cases, any penalty exacted".
Hodgson referred to:
"the demolition of a listed building, the felling of protected trees, the systematic overloading of vehicles and the pollution of the environment"—
as—
"some of the ways in which huge profits are made from breaking the law".
The report considered whether it would be possible to limit confiscation to serious crime—perhaps defined as offences carrying the possible sanction of a prison sentence, but rejected this view. It considered that a serious crime approach would exclude many of the profitable regulatory offences which it clearly thought should be included. I await what is said when the amendments are moved, but the Government's approach is to include any summary offence, rather than the somewhat arbitrary listing that appears in existing legislation.
I turn to the proposed deletion of Clause 70(5). The subsection is required once the prosecutor has asked the magistrates' court to commit a person to the Crown Court for confiscation because, but for that provision, it may not indicate whether it would have committed the offender for sentence under existing powers. Without such an indication, the Crown Court would be limited to the sentencing power of the magistrates' court. That would not be correct if the magistrates' court would have committed the offender for sentence in any event.
22
Amendments Nos. 82, 136 and 196 would delete subsection (2)(c) from Clauses 75, 145 and 229. In the light of the Government's approach through the new schedule, they may not be pressed. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, nodding, so I shall wait to hear what she says about them.
I turn to Amendment No. 195, which would add to Clause 29 in Part 4 the offence contained in Sections 11, 12 or 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Those sections concern membership of and support for a proscribed organisation and the wearing of uniforms. I suggest that none of those are inherently acquisitive offences, and we do not support the amendments for that reason.
I turn to opposition Amendments Nos. 79, 84, 85. 135, 138, 139, 190, 194, 198 and 199. They are all attempts to water down the effect of Clause 35. I think that I have already dealt with those amendments. If I have not, I shall come back to them, when they are moved.
I should mention Amendment No. 80. It is similar to those to which I have referred. It would exclude either-way offences from the application of the assumptions. It follows from what I said that the Government view the inclusion of either-way offences as even more appropriate than the inclusion of summary-only offences. I shall give an example. Either-way offences include theft. In its judicial capacity, your Lordships' House recently upheld the making of a general criminal conduct confiscation order for over £200,000 in the case of Rezvi. He had been convicted of two counts of theft. That is the existing legislation, and we do not want to row back from that.
I apologise for taking so much time, but I hope that I have indicated why we put forward our amendments and why we will resist the other amendments in the present grouping. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: On behalf of those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I welcome the clarification in the schedule and the adoption of the affirrnative procedure to extend the schedule at any future date.
I listened to the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, relating to the other offences for which no acquisitive element cart be defined. I understand the Government's reasons for excluding those matters from the schedule. If we have the opportunity to consider the matter further, it will, I am sure, become quite acceptable. The rationale is entirely acceptable.
Particular lifestyle offences are referred to. Drug trafficking is very serious, and people trafficking is as profitable today-some say that it is more profitable than drug trafficking. I am pleased to see that it is dealt with in the schedule. Counterfeiting has always attracted substantial sentences of imprisonment. Offences relating to intellectual property can carry heavy sentences. Sentences of years are passed for counterfeiting. It is a profitable trade, and it is easily done. It involves international counterfeiting and is a

23
serious problem. I also follow the inclusion of blackmail in the terms to which the noble and learned Lord referred.
I regret to say that I do not accept the provisional explanation that the noble and learned Lord gave for resisting the amendments put forward by the Opposition. It is noticeable that all the lifestyle offences are serious matters; there is nothing trivial about them. It is a major leap from such matters to what is to be contained in Clause 75(2)(d), which refers to,
"conduct forming part of a course of criminal activity".
Such conduct is defined in subsection (3). All that is required are convictions for three or more offences. There is no qualification.
As the noble and learned Lord said, the matter was considered in the Hodgson report. The requirement in the clause refers to—or can refer to—all summary offences, particularly with regard to Clause 70. The noble and learned Lord said that the thrust of the legislation was to deal with profitable regulatory offences that did not carry sentences of imprisonment. The sort of matters that are referred to hardly come within the concept of a criminal lifestyle. A person who chops down trees or pollutes the atmosphere can hardly be described as having a criminal lifestyle. That is where I find a problem.
There must be some targeting of resources for all the provisions of the Bill. It is expensive—in time and resources—to take people to court to obtain orders under the existing legislation. I have some experience of that, as I said at Second Reading. It is time-consuming, and one would not want to see people brought to court for an order to be made under the new legislation in respect of trivial matters. Of course, the Director of Public Prosecutions—or the court, of its volition—must decide to make such an application.
I shall not address each of the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Goodhart, but I shall say that we are trying to place some reasonable limits on the extent to which the Bill should go. Consequently, we have suggested that, for the relevant parts of the Bill, a criminal lifestyle should be defined only with reference to the commission of crime that is punishable by imprisonment. Anything less than that takes the concept of a criminal lifestyle into the realms of absurdity and would not be acceptable. It is in that regard that I speak to our amendments. We will deal with them in due course.
Viscount Bledisloe: I wish to make one technical—but not entirely unimportant—point and ask the noble and learned Lord one question.
Amendment No. 3 would introduce a new schedule. There would be no provision in the Bill to tell us what the schedule was for or to what it relates. Such a provision would not exist unless we were to pass Amendment No. 81. Surely, the right way in which to draft the amendments and present them to the Committee would have been to propose Amendment
24
No. 81—to introduce the schedule—first and then propose the amendment that includes the schedule itself.
I accept that it is unlikely that Amendment No. 3 will be passed and Amendment No. 81 not. However, for anyone coming to the matter fresh, it would make things difficult to have an amendment introducing an entirely new schedule with no introduction and no clue as to what it is doing before one gets to Amendment No. 81. There is no difficulty. The schedule to be inserted by Amendment No. 3 must come after Schedule 1 because it comes before Schedule 2, which relates to Clause 140. Amendment No. 3 could easily have been presented after Amendment No. 81.
The noble and learned Lord said that the offence that he had in mind was gang extortion. Will the offence cover all forms of blackmail? For example, a disappointed mistress may say to a man that unless she is sent some money, she will publish details of his misdoings in the paper. That is not a criminal lifestyle. If the clause would cover such things, is it not too wide? Should it not be limited in some way to organised and—so to speak— professional extortion?
Viscount Goschen: In the noble and learned Lord's introductory remarks he took care to discuss certain offences which were not to be included in the new schedule. Among those he listed that of terrorism activity and pointed to a future amendment that the Government may bring forward which would add some detail.
First, I wonder whether, at this early stage of our consideration in Committee, the noble and learned Lord can go a little further in clarifying the degree to which the Bill could be used, and should be used, towards addressing the racketeering activities of terrorist groups. Clearly a reading of the offences under "lifestyle offences" which are included within the new schedule, such as drug trafficking, money laundering and arms trafficking in particular, may lead one to consider that the racketeering activities of certain terrorist groups, particularly those within Northern Ireland, would be squarely caught. So anything further that the Minister could say at this stage would accelerate our proceedings as these matters are likely to come up on a number of other occasions.
Secondly, will the Minister accept that the list to determine whether or not a criminal lifestyle is being enjoyed by a specific individual should be used with care? It does not in fact give a definitive indication both in terms of the offences omitted—there are proper reasons why that should be so—and also on the question of degree. To take one example, I looked at the paragraph on intellectual property. Paragraph 6(1)(c)refers to,
"making or dealing in an illicit recording".
One can envisage circumstances where someone makes a recording of a CD for their own personal use, or downloads an MP3 file from the Internet, thereby stealing someone else's intellectual property. I understand that the law is still somewhat of a grey area

25
in connection with those issues and that the person could therefore be considered as enjoying a criminal lifestyle. Will the noble and learned Lord clarify whether or not, under those circumstances, that activity would be caught and whether, on an overall basis, the Government accept that this list should be treated with care?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Will the noble and learned Lord clarify a point for me? I may well have got the wrong end of the stick on this point. Believe it or not I am going to talk about cutting down trees and I am also going to talk about intimidation, though not necessarily at the same time.
Intimidation is excluded from this provision. Is somebody enjoying a criminal lifestyle who regularly makes a habit of intimidating competitors so that they go away and the person is then able to purchase property, for example, at a lower than market value because there was no competition? Similarly, a developer may buy a site, cut down trees, improve views and, more to the point, improve site value and therefore, by acting in that, on the face of it, minor illegal way—cutting down trees without a licence—clearly acquire a lot more money as a result. Is he leading a criminal lifestyle?
Lord Williamson of Horton: Can the noble and learned Lord say whether, when producing this list of offences, the Government considered the issue of large-scale smuggling by organised gangs? The only reason I raise the point is that there is a considerable amount of money at issue. The Government have published figures showing a loss of revenue of £2.5 billion and therefore a large amount of money is swilling about in consequence.
I agree with the text of Amendment No. 3. I do not have any difficulty with it. But I should like to know whether or not this point was considered since it is a substantial amount of money which forms the proceeds of crime. That money goes somewhere and is not easily recovered.
Baroness Buscombe: I shall take this matter carefully. As the Attorney-General pointed out, a number of amendments are involved in this group and I want to be sure that I address the correct ones.
I thank the Minister for responding positively to concerns raised in another place by my honourable friends. The new schedule gives clarity and we have no doubt that it will considerably assist the assets recovery agency and the courts. The introduction of this new schedule much improves the Bill. Further, we are pleased with the important concession that all regulations made by the Secretary of State under this provision will be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses, in which case Amendment No. 82, which seeks to leave out Clause 75(2)(c), is unnecessary.
I was interested to hear what the Attorney-General said in relation to certain offences that are not listed. Perhaps I may refer to one in particular and use this as an excuse and an opportunity to make a plea to the noble and learned Lord. He referred to child
26
pornography, and in particular to child pornography on the Internet. We hope to hear from the Government in the near future that they will find a way to deal with that heinous crime. However, we understand that, since it is not acquisitive, this is not the proper place to deal with it and therefore entirely accept his argument on that point.
In his response to our amendment referring to the Terrorism Act 2000, we understand the Minister to say that the Government will bring forward an amendment to take account of that point. Clearly racketeering is an important issue, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Goschen. Indeed, I support my noble friend in his request for the Attorney-General to expand on that at this stage as it is so important and will assist us through the passage of this Bill.
We agree that a cautious approach should be taken to this matter. It will be helpful to hear the Attorney-General's response to the various questions concerning the parameters of the list. We heard what the Minister had to say with regard to Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 and so we shall not be moving them. That applies also to Amendment No. 80 and related amendments.
That said, in relation to Amendment No. 83, will the noble and learned Lord respond to the proposal to prevent a finding of a criminal lifestyle solely on the basis that a single offence has been committed which lasted for a period of at least six months? In our view, that category is unduly broad and any such offences should be specified under the new schedule of lifestyle offences proposed by the Government.
I am perhaps less concerned about the parameters of the schedule depending upon the Government's response to a proposal that I shall put forward when we reach Amendment No. 13, which relates specifically to the discretion of the court. On that basis I shall not press any of the amendments we tabled following on from Amendment No. 3 and await with interest the Minister's response.
Lord Goodhart: Perhaps I may intervene very briefly. While I can understand and appreciate the arguments in relation to the amendments to Clause 70, which would exclude arty power of the magistrates' court to commit a defendant to the Crown Court whether it was for general or specific criminal conduct, I do not entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the amendments to Clause 75 are inappropriate. I agree that it would not be right to limit those to indictable offences or to either way offences. However, there are serious arguments for saying that before one can describe someone as having a criminal lifestyle they must at least have committed offences which are punishable by imprisonment. If a person has demolished a listed building without planning consent, or committed another offence which does not carry imprisonment as a penalty, perhaps he or she should be pursued for profits made as a result of particular criminal conduct or for a civil recovery order. Even if committed on more than one occasion, it does not seem appropriate to decide that that constitutes a criminal lifestyle.

27
What kinds of offence are contemplated by paragraph (e)—the offence committed over a period of six months—and why is it necessary to include those as constituting a criminal lifestyle? If particular offences can be identified, I agree with the noble Baroness that they should be listed in the schedule.
Lord Goldsmith: First, I am grateful for the warm welcome that noble Lords have given to the proposed amendment. I have spent a number of years in practice close to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I am well aware of his interest in technical matters. Amendment No. 81 forms part of the same grouping; the two plainly go together. I hope he will agree that his objections, although soundly based, do not give rise to any difficulty. Noble Lords well know where we are. As long as both amendments are passed, the purpose of the schedule will be clear.
I shall deal with some of the questions and return to the main points. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, also asked about the position in relation to blackmail. He is right. Because the offence under the Theft Act is a single offence it would cover a single instance of blackmail which did not constitute extortion. As a matter of English law, in the definition of the offence, there is no way of distinguishing between the one and the other.
However, there are two important safeguards. It is important to bear them in mind when considering that case and certain other cases. First, the order will not be made save where the prosecutor asks for confiscation. One would not expect that to take place if there were a single isolated instance of an opportunistic blackmail of the kind to which the noble Viscount referred. Secondly, under Clause 11 the court always has the power not to apply the assumptions if there might be a serious risk of injustice. That is a second safeguard against the instance where there would be an isolated example which, in the court's view, did not justify the finding.
As I made clear, whether to include blackmail was not an easy decision precisely because of the point to which the noble Viscount refers. It was thought on balance that it was right to do so in order to catch the important extortion and protection racketeering type of offences.
I turn to the relationship with terrorism to which the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and other noble Lords referred. We need to bear in mind that Section 23 of the Terrorism Act 2000 already sets out a discrete forfeiture scheme for persons convicted of those terrorist fund-raising offences. The scheme enables the forfeiture of funds which are intended for use in terrorism and other similar property. Theoretically, there is nothing to prevent a confiscation order under the Bill in respect of the benefit generated to the defendant by the offence as well as a forfeiture order under the 2000 Act in respect of the benefit generated for the terrorist cause. Those could be made in the same proceedings. I suggest that that would give the flexibility which the authorities require.
28
The Bill does not state that terrorist fund-raising is itself a criminal lifestyle offence and, therefore, does not trigger that set of provisions. The Government have not thought it appropriate that it should trigger those provisions. It is not clear that a single conviction for terrorist fund-raising would be indicative that the defendant is likely to be living off the proceeds of crime. It indicates that he has certain ideological or other convictions and political aspirations but not perhaps that he is a lifestyle criminal. That is the thinking underlying the existing provision. The Government are likely to return to the matter on Report. If I can provide the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, before then with further information on the detail, I shall write to him.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, raised two points, including the question of environmental offences. Again in accordance with Government's overall approach, the question is whether a single conviction is indicative of a criminal lifestyle. The Government would not consider that appropriate. I shall come back to the issued raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on Amendment No. 83, with regard to a series of offences committed over a period of time. I hope that I have indicated that a careful approach has been adopted in putting together the schedule.
I should mention two other examples which were referred to. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, referred to smuggling. We are considering whether to include this sort of offence. His observations were helpful. We shall make our views known on Report.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, referred to the copyright offence. The relevant definition of the offence—I hope that I have it right from recollection—involves making such a recording for sale or hire; in other words, it is for commercial purposes. Therefore, the example he gives of someone making it for his or her own purpose does not fall within the scheduled offence.
I turn to Amendment No. 83 and related amendments. Those seek to delete subsection (2)(e) from Clause 75. Subsection (2) specifies that a person has a criminal lifestyle,
"if it is an offence committed over a period of at least six months".
I suggest that most people will agree that where an offence is committed over a long period of time, and where profits have been acquired from it, it is clear that the person concerned is indulging in a criminal lifestyle. I was asked to give an example of that and the most obvious would probably be the case of a conspiracy where such conduct is often a protracted activity.
Once again—I mention the same two safeguards—the prosecutor, or the court if the prosecutor does not do so, would have to decide whether to seek such an order and it would be a matter for the court to decide whether in the circumstances of a particular case there would be a serious risk of injustice if the assumptions were applied. The Government suggest that those are sufficient safeguards to prevent injudicious use of this provision.

29
I remind the Committee—I may want to return to this point later in the debate—that the proposal in the Bill is not as tight in some respects as the present law. On the present criteria, for example, it depends whether there is one other offence in the preceding six months or two or more on the indictment in the same proceedings. We have made these provisions tighter for the purposes of consolidating and bringing the different parts of the legislation together.
In opening, I dealt with summary offences. Of course, the schedule does not include summary offences. This situation arises in circumstances where one of the other provisions—for example, the provision in relation to repeat offences—is triggered. It is important to bear that clearly in mind. Where there are repeat offences, whether a summary or an either-way offence or an indictable-only offence, the Committee may feel that that is strongly indicative of a criminal lifestyle. Again, the assumptions under the Act can be displaced. I shall return to that point. The assumptions arise only where an order is sought and the court has the ability to say that in a particular case there is a serious risk of injustice so the assumption will not be made. For those reasons the Government press Amendment No. 3 and related provisions and they continue to resist those amendments that are still being pursued.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Accreditation and training]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) The specific functions of the Agency are to trace and investigate ownership of property where there is a reasonable belief that possession of property is unlawful due to its being derived from criminal activity."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 4 is grouped with Amendment No. 5, but I shall speak only to Amendment No. 4. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the specific functions of the asset recovery agency.
Part 1 of the Bill—Clauses 1 to 5—deals with the establishment of the asset recovery agency. The establishment of the agency is intended as a measure to rationalise and to co-ordinate the recovery of assets tainted by criminality through confiscation, civil recovery, the exercise of revenue functions and the training of financial investigators.
Clauses 1 to 5 are silent as to the specific functions of the director of the asset recovery agency. Those functions are, as is said in the Explanatory Notes, to be found in other provisions of the legislation. However, it is noteworthy that the director of the agency is generally referred to only in conjunction with the existing powers of prosecutors and, in certain circumstances, the courts, to initiate, to process and to enforce confiscation proceedings. The exception is in relation to the provisions relating to civil forfeiture.
Clause 3, which sets out the duties of the director to set up accreditation and training programmes, is to be commended. Asset recovery and confiscation are complicated areas and the current arrangements have
30
suffered from a lack of expertise in the various agencies which currently deal with confiscation: the Crown Prosecution Service, the Inland Revenue, HM Customs amp; Excise and so on. One may also hope that the higher profile of confiscation and asset recovery may result in greater resources being devoted to the area. Practitioners will know that the Crown Prosecution Service and other agencies are extremely hard pressed in terms of personnel and continue to have staffing problems. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: In view of the brevity of the noble Baroness I shall not use my extensive notes. The noble Baroness is right that the director's functions are not laid out in one specific part of the Bill, but they are covered. Perhaps I can give a brief rundown of them. The director's functions will be, as set out in Parts 2 and 4, to initiate and pursue confiscation proceedings against convicted defendants in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; in Part 5 to recover the proceeds of crime by bringing civil recovery proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; in Part 6 to exercise revenue functions in the United Kingdom where there is a reasonable suspicion of the presence of the proceeds of crime; in Part 8 to carry out criminal confiscation and civil recovery investigations; in Part 11 to assist overseas public authorities to identify and recover the proceeds of crime (where an Order in Council is made under Part 11 to confer such functions on the director); in Clause 3 to provide training and to set up a system for the accreditation of financial investigators; in Clause 4(2) and Clause 432 to co-operate with other law enforcement agencies; and in Clause 5 to provide advice and assistance to the Secretary of State.
I hope that that brief summary will reinforce the fact that the functions of the director are in the Bill, but they are set out in the relevant parts, bearing in mind the functions deployed. It would be otiose to restate them all in one place in the Bill.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I am sorry that he did not respond positively to what we believe is a helpful suggestion. It would be nice to have the functions of the asset recovery agency up front so that anyone considering the Bill, when it is an Act, will have them in a nutshell. I entirely understand what the Minister has said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. This amendment clarifies that the director can provide different classes of accreditation for different purposes to financial investigators. We want to make it explicit that Clause 3 does not provide only for a single general training and accreditation scheme for financial

31
investigators. Financial investigators can be accredited for different purposes. That is appropriate because we expect different types of financial investigators to exercise different functions under the Bill.
Parts 2, 4 and 8 of the Bill provide investigators with access to powers to restrain property and certain investigation powers. Access to those powers will be partly governed by the director. He will be able to accredit civilian investigators whom he considers, against established criteria, suitable to use the relevant powers in the Bill. He may accredit investigators to use only the powers under Parts 2 and 4, to use only the powers under Part 8 or to use all the powers given to financial investigators under the Bill.
The investigation powers for which accreditation may be granted are production orders; search warrants; customer information orders (circulars to banks requiring them to report any account held by a person under investigation); and account monitoring orders (orders requiring a bank or other financial institution to provide transaction information on a suspect account for a specified period). The latter two are new powers. The customer information order will require the authorisation of a senior officer before an application can be made. We envisage that there will be a separate form of accreditation for those who are to authorise applications. That is because the skills necessary to authorise applications are different from those necessary to make an application.
In summary, the amendment simply clarifies that civilian personnel will be able to be accredited to use the restraint powers, investigation powers or both. In addition, they may also be accredited to fulfil the role given to senior officers of authorising the use of such powers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
"(3A) A person may be accredited—

(a) in relation to this Act;

(b) in relation to particular provisions of this Act.

(3B) But the accreditation may be limited to specified purposes.
(3C) A reference in this Act to an accredited financial investigator is to be construed accordingly."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Advice and assistance]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) Where there is dispute between the agencies as to the appropriate means of proceeding, the dispute shall be referred to the Secretary of State, or alternatively will be decided by a code to be drawn up by the Secretary of State prior to implementation."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the ARA's status and function in relation to the other investigative and prosecuting agencies.
32
To us at any rate, it is far from clear how the ARA's investigative functions and its functions in confiscation proceedings, will relate to those currently being exercised by the confiscation units of other prosecuting agencies. For example, Part 2 of the Bill, which deals with confiscation, makes clear that the director, the prosecutor or the court may initiate and maintain such proceedings.
In these circumstances one wonders whether there will be turf wars and, more importantly, how it will be decided which agency carries out the proceedings and enforces any judgment. For example, what happens if the prosecutor wishes to move to confiscation but the ARA does not? What about the reverse position?
Again, Part 10 of the Bill relates to the disclosure of information from the director and specifically refers to the disclosure of information to a prosecutor in the exercise of his or her functions under Parts 2 to 4 of the Bill. Will the ARA carry out investigations and pass on information to the prosecutor? If this is so, what are the implications for the existing confiscation and financial investigation units in the prosecuting agencies?
In general, one would wish for greater detail in relation to the actual functions of the ARA and its relationship with existing prosecuting agencies—in the exercise of their main functions in restraint and confiscation proceedings in particular and, to a lesser extent, in civil asset recovery proceedings. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: As regards the points which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has raised, it may be worth saying at the outset that the Bill provides that the director will share the confiscation functions of the law enforcement and prosecuting authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That will allow those authorities to ask the director to handle the financial investigation and confiscation aspects while they concentrate on the criminal investigation and proceedings.
Clearly, there are issues as to how the shared order will work in practice and that is recognised. It will be a key element in the memorandum of understanding drawn up between the agency and the enforcement and prosecuting authorities. That memorandum will serve to prevent turf wars because, with a new organisation, one has to be very careful to guard against such events being generated almost by accident.
The director will receive most of his cases from the law enforcement and prosecution authorities in the first place. He will need to keep in close contact during his investigations. As I have said, we envisage that there will be a memorandum of understanding. Guidance will be issued. It is intended to help the director. It will be for him to decide how to best exercise his functions.
I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said as regards doubts about the functions of the assets recovery agency. There is no question but that will be a formidable operation. Looking at the Bill and the

33
Notes on Clauses, one can see that it is a very important innovative step in terms of dealing with crime in this country.
As regards England, Wales and Northern Ireland, decisions will have to be made as to when a case should be referred to the director for possible civil recovery action because the possibility of taking forward a criminal prosecution has been ruled out.
We have made clear that decisions by law enforcement agencies as to whether or not to continue with a criminal investigation or to prosecute will be taken without reference to the possibility that civil recovery or taxation might subsequently be taken by the agency. Decisions will be taken in accordance with the normal evidential and public interest tests. We believe that that is the right approach because it will be a matter for the director to decide which of the cases referred to him by law enforcement authorities should be taken forward by him in the light of his objectives and resources.
I can confirm that the existing agencies are already considering which cases might be referred to the director once the agency has been established. But a considerable amount of detailed work, including that involved in preparing the memorandum of understanding, will have to await the appointment of the director. In the light of my comments I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that we do not see a need for the type of arrangements envisaged in the amendment. We actively oppose any role for the Secretary of State in taking what should be operational decisions.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister very much indeed for his reply. Will the Committee have the opportunity to see the text of this memorandum of understanding at some early stage in the proceedings, perhaps at Report stage? The Minister also mentioned guidance, but by whom, to whom and about what? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the House about that and give some idea as to when we might see a draft of such guidance.
Lord Rooker: We shall make sure that we publish everything that we possibly can. The guidance will come from the Secretary of State. It will be open to him to consult widely on it. It naturally follows that that he will want to consult the law enforcement and prosecuting authorities. I shall take advice on the memorandum and come back to the noble Lord on that matter. I do not know whether it will be in the public domain, although I suspect that most of it will be. I do not know the answer to that question, but I shall take advice and return to it later.
Lord Kingsland: To the extent that the director will be exercising his discretion to do or not to do something on the basis of the memorandum, will the Minister agree that it is important that it is in the public domain?
Lord Rooker: As I said earlier, I do not know whether all of it will be in the public domain. I said that
34
we would put everything we possibly can into that area. I indicated that the director will be guided by the number of cases he takes on as to the importance he gives to the matter. In addition, there is the question of his own resources. One does not know the number of cases which will go to the director. Consideration is now being given to the kinds of cases to be referred to him. We are some way down the road towards the agency being set up. The cases he takes up will depend on his resources. It will be for the director to explain in due course the decisions which he has taken.
I return to what I said earlier. We will put everything we can into the public domain, but I cannot say that the whole of the memorandum will be included. I do not know.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for that further reply. He will understand that we will wish to return to this matter at Report stage. I accept that the noble Lord will do his best to provide the Committee with further information. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandevillemoved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"INVESTIGATIONS: ANONYMITY OF AGENCY STAFF AND OTHERS
(1) Where the Director is satisfied that there is good reason to believe that the conduct of an investigation or the safety of a nominated officer might be prejudiced if the identity of that officer were known, he may determine that the nominated officer shall have the benefit of anonymity.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a nominated officer is—

(a) a member of staff of the Agency, or

(b) an accredited financial investigator.

(3) Where, apart from this section, a nominated officer may be required for the purpose of exercising his functions in the conduct of an investigation to produce or show any written authority or otherwise to identify himself, a nominated officer with benefit of anonymity shall—

(a) not be required to produce or show any such authority or to so identify himself for the purpose of exercising his functions, and

(b) be accompanied by a constable who shall, on request by a person affected, identify himself as a constable and state that he is accompanied by a nominated officer.

(4) Where a nominated officer with benefit of anonymity exercises his functions in the conduct of an investigation in writing, such function shall be exercised in the name of the Agency and not in the name of the nominated officer with benefit of anonymity.
(5) Any document relating to proceedings arising out of an investigation where a nominated officer had benefit of anonymity shall not reveal the identity or address of a nominated officer with benefit of anonymity.
(6) For the purposes of this section, "investigation" means any investigation specified in section 336 other than a money laundering investigation."

35
The noble Lord said: It may be helpful if I describe the provenance and pedigree of the two proposed new clauses which stand in my name on the Marshalled List. They were tabled in another place on behalf of the Commons Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which is in the midst of an inquiry into the financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland which it has not yet concluded. The committee did, however, publish an interim report on 14th February in advance of the Report stage of the Bill in the Commons, on 26th and 27th February. The interim report described the committee's visit to Dublin as part of its inquiry because it felt that the visit and its findings had relevance to this Bill.
During that visit, committee members made the acquaintance of a similar agency to the assets recovery agency envisaged by the Bill; namely, the Criminal Assets Bureau, set up in the Republic in 1996, with a staff including officers of An Garda Siochána, Customs officers, tax inspectors, social security officials, professional lawyers and forensic accountants. Over the past five years, the bureau has recovered 21 million punts' worth of assets—aficionados can translate that figure into euros—through proceeds of crime actions. It has made social welfare savings of 1.25 million punts; and, to date, it has collected 28 million punts out of a total of 56 million punts demanded as tax on criminal assets. It is also said to have had a powerful deterrent effect among criminal classes which had previously considered themselves invulnerable.
In the interests of simplicity, perhaps I may quote paragraphs 6 and 7 of the committee's brief interim report:
"The Republic of Ireland's Criminal Assets Bureau deals with sophisticated and dangerous criminals, some of whom have paramilitary connections. In a number of cases these individuals, prior to the establishment of the Bureau, had evaded the law enforcement agencies by verbal and physical intimidation of both witnesses and officials. We were told that on occasion extreme violence had been used. Officers working for the Bureau are dealing with cases which it would frequently be difficult to pursue through other means without exposing staff to considerable personal risk.
The CAB is able to pursue these individuals both safely and effectively because its civilian personnel are protected by statutory anonymity. The Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996 provides for officials to be vouched for by a member of the Garda rather than disclosing any warrant of appointment while engaged in a search or other activities; for the identity of the official to be disclosed only to the judge during court proceedings; and for the name of the Bureau to be substituted for the individual officer's name in certain correspondence. Disclosure of the identity of members, or former members, of staff, or of their families, is punishable by up to three years' imprisonment"
The proposed new clauses standing in my name are intended to introduce the same concepts into British legislation. I should make it clear that I have repeated verbatim the new clauses tabled in the Commons. Imitation is, of course, the sincerest form of flattery, but the majority of the Select Committee are survivors from the same Select Committee in the previous Parliament and are thus experienced in Northern Ireland and Irish affairs, and its chairman, Michael
36
Mates MP, is also a vice-chairman of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body and a former security Minister in Northern Ireland.
The other place had a good debate on Report on 27th February on these clauses and other matters, which lasted for at least an hour and a quarter (cols. 748–768 of the Official Report). The Minister. Mr Bob Ainsworth, wound up the debate briefly, the final paragraph of his speech being devoted specifically to these new clauses. He did an exemplary job of making it clear that, while he was not against the new clauses, he was not fully in favour of them either. However, he did say that he would do his best to ensure that the Government could do something that was effective if that was in any way possible. Since that amounted effectively to taking the matter away for consideration, the new clauses reappear in this House by way of probing amendments to verify where further consideration has so far reached. That seems to me a not unreasonable question, as the Minister in another place, while being even-handed, was unspecific, except implicitly, as to what he liked about the clauses and was explicitly unspecific about what he did not like.
In conclusion, perhaps I may pay brief tribute to the courage of officers of the same backgrounds in Northern Ireland as serve in the bureau in Dublin. In the previous Parliament, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, on which I then served, investigated the massive smuggling of fuel oil between the two jurisdictions within the island of Ireland, with a centre of gravity in South Armagh. I am, therefore, recently familiar with the bravery of Customs officers in Northern Ireland whose Treasury Minister I once was. More than a decade ago, when I was serving as a Minister in Northern Ireland, I could not speak too highly of the courage of Inland Revenue officers in terms of other forms of tax fraud in particular parts of the Province. I recall one occasion when we conducted a very large number of raids simultaneously, often on professional premises, backed up, of course, by the security forces. The papers seized, as with the late Mr Al Capone in Chicago in the 1930s, proved amply an inattention to tax detail on the part of taxpayers, or perhaps more precisely non-taxpayers, who had believed that violence had placed them above the law.
I recognise that, as with, in John Masters' account, the half dozen Gurkha soldiers in World War Two who volunteered to jump out of aeroplanes even before it was explained to them that they would also be assisted by a parachute, the fact that there were volunteers for this sort of work a dozen years ago might make some say that the new clauses are otiose. However, the Irish experience indicates that anonymity and protection for officials and professional investigators in the bureau are conducive both to recruitment and to productive results. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I entirely support my noble friend Lord Brooke and defer completely to his experience.
Lord Rooker: I was almost about to say the same. I have never set foot on the island of Ireland, but it is

37
not so easy to carry out law enforcement activities on a small island with a single community as it is in a large country with millions of people. Therefore, the noble Lord's tribute to the bravery of the officers concerned is wholly justified. Although I cannot accept the amendments today, we shall accept the idea at another time. As Bob Ainsworth said in reply to the debate in the other place, we shall examine the matter further.
At present, anonymity is available only to police and to Customs officers and in very limited circumstances in relation to the investigation of terrorism. Civilian staff working for bodies such as the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office have no statutory right to anonymity. However, we have given the matter further consideration. At a suitable point in the Bill—which I understand to be Part 12 the Government will bring forward an amendment dealing with the protection of the identity of members of staff of the agency. We shall have a full opportunity then to debate the issue.
It may be useful for future debate if I say that the amendment that we intend to table will empower the director of the agency, and only the director, to direct that members of agency staff may operate using pseudonyms in circumstances where they would otherwise need to identify themselves by name. That will, we believe, provide an important protection in appropriate cases. We shall discuss those in some detail when we reach that part of the Bill.
Viscount Bledisloe: As we shall be returning to this matter, perhaps I may make one point. Does not this provision go too far? The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that the identity of the anonymous person would be revealed to the judge. What happens if the judge himself thinks it necessary to reveal it for the purposes of the proceedings to other persons taking part in the proceedings? Strictly, under the Bill as drafted, the judge himself would be committing the offence under subsection (3) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 10. I do not believe that there is any exclusion for the judge causing the name to be revealed if he feels it necessary in the interests of justice.
Lord Rooker: The noble Viscount raises an important point. I do not know whether judges have that power when at the moment only limited anonymity is available. I hear what the noble Viscount says and we shall consider the issue with a view to debating it in greater detail. That point will have to be addressed in Part 12 of the Bill.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful to your Lordships who have taken part in this debate and I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved]
Clause 6 [Making of order]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert "and the court considers that there is no real risk of injustice from it so proceeding"
38
The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 15, 78, 97, 98, 144 and 146. I do not intend to speak to Amendments Nos. 87, 140 and 200.
The amendment address one of the most important issues of the Bill, which is judicial discretion and the power of the judiciary to intervene to ensure that justice is done, and seen to be done. There was considerable debate on this issue in another place and a good deal of concern was expressed in your Lordships' House at Second Reading. All the reasoning was laudable and reflected the criminal justice system as we know it and as we wish to protect it. In so doing, we wish to protect the freedom and rights of the individual against the undue and overbearing power of the state.
To put the matter in context, when I first read the Bill I was appalled at the prospect of the courts having no discretion to decide whether an investigation should proceed under Clause 3. We are then confronted with a further new element of criminal lifestyle, which is thrust upon us in Clause 6, wherein a judge can decide only as a matter of fact whether to confiscate a person's assets before the person has had the opportunity to show that such assets were obtained by innocent means.
Our Amendments Nos. 11, 13, 93, 97, 98 and 144 all contend that the court should have a discretion at the outset as to whether an investigation should take place at all. The matter was pressed in another place by my honourable friends the Members for Beaconsfield and for Surrey Heath. My honourable friend the Member for Beaconsfied, Mr Grieve, said:
"Under the Bill, action can be taken not only at the prosecutor's but at the director's discretion. In truth, it is being turned into a confiscatory administrative mechanism, wholly controlled by the director of the Assets Recovery Agency. That should be a source of concern to those who wish asset recovery to be an instrument of justice and not of oppression".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 15/11/01; col. 61.]
Following discussions with the metropolitan police and the head of the serious crime group, we are now suggesting in Amendments Nos. 15, 78 and 146 what we believe to be a sensible, workable compromise. We appreciate that when a prosecutor asks for an investigation he or she is doing so at a stage when a judge or magistrate will not necessarily have the information that underlies the reason for that investigation.
Under Clause 6 the Crown Court can make a confiscation order if certain conditions are satisfied. For example, if a defendant is convicted of an offence in the Crown Court and the prosecutor asks the court to proceed under Clause 6, and if the court decides that the defendant has a criminal lifestyle and has benefited from his general criminal conduct, or if he has benefited from his particular criminal conduct although he does not have a criminal lifestyle, the court must—not may—make a confiscation order. The court has no discretion in the matter. Essentially the only discretion leading to a confiscation order is to be exercised by the prosecutor or the director of the assets recovery agency making the appropriate

39
decision to ask the court to proceed under Clause 6. If either of them do that the court must make the confiscation order once it has decided certain issues of fact.
The court must make that order however great the injustice. We think that it could be argued that the court should have discretion in the matter. It cannot be right that what little discretion there is under the clause can be exercised only by a prosecutor, who is hardly an impartial observer. We believe that a judge is the best qualified person. He has the appropriate knowledge, experience and impartiality to decide whether a confiscation order should be made.
Amendment No. 15 would give the judge a discretion not to make a confiscation order if he felt it inappropriate to do so. If the prosecutor or the director of the assets recovery agency does not like that decision, he or she can appeal. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General may say that our amendment is unnecessary because of Clause 11(6). Clause 11 refers to assumptions to be made in case of a criminal lifestyle and subsection (6) states that,
"the court must not make a required assumption in relation to particular property or expenditure if …there would be a serious risk of injustice if the assumption were made".
That is not sufficient. At this stage of the proceedings, the court must be given proper discretion on all the facts before it decides what is just. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: This group of amendments includes three—Amendments Nos. 14, 95 and 145—in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. I should say at the outset that our views are similar to those of the Conservatives, as expressed by the noble Baroness.
The Government are showing an alarming lack of trust in the courts, and perhaps an equally alarming confidence in the prosecutor or director to reach the right decisions. The Government are attempting to impose rigid rules. I have no great problem with the idea that if a defendant is convicted in the Crown Court, or committed there for sentence, the court must at least consider making a confiscation order if it is asked to do so by the director or the prosecution. However, that consideration opens up a two-stage process in cases when a criminal lifestyle is alleged.
The court has to decide whether the defendant has a criminal lifestyle, and if it finds that he does, under Clause 11, it has to investigate what benefit, if any, the defendant has obtained from that lifestyle and order the confiscation of the benefit. Criminal lifestyle is defined in Clause 75.
The court's decision at stage one of the inquiry—whether there is a criminal lifestyle—depends almost entirely on the defendant having been convicted of one or more offences included in the list, or three or more unlisted offences. In the great majority of cases, previous convictions will be formally proved and that will be that. But the formality of the requirement in
40
Clause 75 leaves the court with no effective discretion. We know that three minor shoplifting offences for which a defendant has been convicted over a period of six years would constitute a criminal lifestyle. So, too, as it appears from the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to a previous group of amendments, would a conspiracy for apparently any purpose that had continued for a period of six months, or more; for example, a conspiracy by members of an environmental group deliberately to cause some relatively minor form of criminal damage as part of a protest.
The court cannot say, technically, that the requirements of Clause 75 are satisfied if the defendant does not, in reality, have anything that could be called "a criminal lifestyle". The Government can, and do, say that in such a case the prosecutor would not ask for a confiscation order—probably not. But there will be cases, although perhaps not quite so obviously non-lifestyle as the ones that I mentioned, where an overzealous prosecutor might ask for a confiscation order on the basis of general criminal conduct where it was unreasonable to press for such an order.
The Government will then point out that there is a safety net in the courts' jurisdiction in Clause 11(6). The courts can refuse to make an assumption under Clause 11 if there would be a serious risk of injustice if an assumption were made. Indeed, I acknowledge that that is a matter of some help. However, it still means that the defendant will have to go through the process of providing information about his assets, identifying how they were paid for, and so on, which will be extremely onerous. Where the defendant's lifestyle is criminal in a purely technical sense only under Clause 75 and not so in reality, it would surely be much better for the court to have power to stop the case at stage 1 and not have to continue with the full investigation required by stage 2.
The Government are saying, "We can't trust the courts to exercise that discretion reasonably. Therefore we have to force everyone to sit through the lengthy hearing of an application, which should not have been brought to begin with". I accept that the fact that convictions are nominally trivial does not always mean that there is not a real criminal lifestyle, but in deciding what is just the prosecution could outline the case against a defendant—and would no doubt do so—and could allege that the conviction was only the tip of the iceberg and that, therefore, the confiscation order was justified.
In order to achieve a just result, we need a power for the court to bring the proceedings to an end at stage 1 when the court decides whether or not a criminal lifestyle is proven, if the court is satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, it would be unjust to allow the proceedings to continue on the basis that there was a criminal lifestyle.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may ask a question in support of my noble friend. Why should this Bill give a discretion to the prosecutor but no discretion to the court? I repeat that question because I want to be sure that the noble and learned Lord the

41
Attorney-General has heard my question, which is very short. Why should the discretion as to whether or not to bring proceedings under the Bill rest with the prosecutor, not with the court? I quite fail to follow the rationale of that provision. Once the prosecutor says, "We will have an investigation", it is mandatory. Is it that the Government do not trust the judges, or what?
Lord Goldsmith: I apologise to the noble Lord for my momentary lapse of attention for technical reasons. The amendments now before the Committee resurrect quite a lengthy debate in another place. The amendments are different variants of the same point; namely, to remove the mandatory element, or elements, from the scheme.
I should like to make some general points before dealing with the specifics of the amendments. First, the use of a mandatory process is not new. Under existing drug trafficking confiscation legislation that applies to England and Wales, it is the position—and has been for a number of years—that there is a mandatory requirement for the assumptions to be made following conviction of a single drug trafficking offence. Indeed, having found that the existing legislation in 1988, which did not include mandatory assumptions, was not working, the previous Conservative government introduced mandatory assumptions into the later Bill. Therefore, although it is true that the mandatory element does not apply in all cases, either across the United Kingdom or in relation to all offences, it would be very strange to row back from the existing position in relation to whether such assumptions should be made mandatory.
Secondly, we need to remember why the legislation is necessary. As was largely agreed on Second Reading, it is necessary because the proceeds of crime are fuelling more crime: they are the working capital of drug traffickers, of people traffickers, and of organised crime. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, put it pithily on Second Reading, they have a corrosive effect. I believe that we are all agreed that it is important for them to be reached. However, at present, only a very small proportion of the proceeds of crime are reached by existing legislation. As I said previously, less than £20 million was confiscated in 2000–01, whereas it is estimated that the added value of the drug trade alone is perhaps as much as £8.5 billion. That represents a very remarkable disparity between what we are able to achieve and the actual proceeds of crime. Therefore, the Government believe it to he crucial for the legislation to be both workable and effective.
I do not choose the words "workable" and "effective" accidentally; indeed, they are words used by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on Second Reading, when she said that it was the will and wish of her party,
"to assist the Government in producing a workable and effective piece of legislation".—[Official Report, 25/5/02; col. 19.]
The removal of the mandatory requirements—and, therefore, a major plank of the scheme—would, in our view, be the opposite of producing a workable and effective piece of legislation; indeed, as I said, it would
42
be rowing back on the existing position, even though that does not achieve as much as I believe all noble Lords desire.
Thirdly, I wish to emphasise the nature of the proceedings that will take place. To begin with, the prosecutor must ask. Noble Lords will be aware that prosecutors—certainly those in the Crown Prosecution Service and in the Serious Fraud Office—come under my jurisdiction. I am the Minister responsible for them. Noble Lords will also be aware that the prosecutors jealously guard their independence: they exercise an independent judgment in the prosecution decisions that they make. Therefore, the only zealousness that I recognise in relation to prosecutors is the exercise of an independent judgment; that is, a judgment in accordance with the facts, with the evidence, and with the law, as opposed to their being over-zealous in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
As public authorities, it is unlikely in the extreme that prosecutors would consider it appropriate to spend the time or the resources on pursuing a confiscation in a case where that was plainly inappropriate. I regard the fact that the prosecutor must ask as an important, but entirely appropriate, safeguard in these procedures. But there is a further important safeguard. Where we are concerned with a case in which assumptions are to be made, then in two circumstances those assumptions will not be made; first, if the assumption is not made out, as in Clause 11(6)(a), because the assumption is inappropriate and the defendant demonstrates that it is inappropriate, and, secondly, as I mentioned earlier, where the court is of the view that there would be a serious risk of injustice if a particular assumption were to be made. Again, that is a fallback position. That is not to minimise what it is, but it is an important circumstance in which the court, if it thinks that there would be a serious risk of injustice, would be able not to make a particular assumption.
Short of that, what the legislation provides is that if the prosecutor asks for the order and the court finds—either in the particular case or by application of the assumptions—that the defendant has benefited from criminal conduct, then the court will have to make an order. The Government ask: what is wrong with that? If the defendant has benefited from criminal conduct, why should not the proceeds, up to the available amount and not beyond what the defendant actually has—we have debated that point—be forfeited? What is the justification for forfeiting less than that?
Those general points are applicable to all the amendments in this grouping. Perhaps I may refer briefly to the slight variations between the amendments which have been put forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, pointed out, Amendments Nos. 11, 93 and 144—the latter two referring to the respective Scotland and Northern Ireland variants—would put an additional requirement into Clause 6. I suggest that that would have the effect of abolishing the mandatory nature of the procedure. It would change confiscation from a certain disposal applied uniformly across the jurisdiction into something rather unreliable and

43
subjective. If I may respectfully say so, the lead amendment does not even suggest the criteria by which the court is to decide what is meant by a,
"real risk of injustice from … proceeding".
Of course we understand what would be meant if the court reached the stage of either making or not making an assumption because of the serious risk of injustice in making it. In effect, this would amount to a discretionary power which, for the reasons I have given, the Government would regard as seriously and dramatically undermining the benefits of the legislation.
Noble Lords may also consider that it is important for criminals to know that if they do benefit from criminal conduct, they will not be able to escape and will not be permitted to keep their benefit. If convicted of the relevant offences, then the confiscation procedure will follow. That is an important message.
Amendments Nos. 15, 97, 98 and 146 put the discretion at a different stage; that is, once the court has decided that the defendant has benefited from criminal conduct. The noble Baroness seeks to give the court a discretion, notwithstanding that, not to make an order. If the court has decided that the defendant has benefited from criminal conduct, then the Government ask why the defendant should not have to pass over such money—if the money is not there, that is a different matter—up to the available amount. Why, they ask, should he be allowed to keep it?
If it is a case of application of the assumptions, then a different safeguard is already available. It is that the court will not make the assumption if there is a serious risk of injustice.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 14 and their Scotland and Northern Ireland equivalents, Amendments Nos. 95 and 145, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The effect of those amendments would be to prevent the court deciding that the defendant had a criminal lifestyle and confiscating the benefit from his general criminal conduct if it considered that it would be unjust to do so. These are variations on the previous amendments which would make the holding of a confiscation hearing a matter for the discretion of the court.
While we understand that the amendments are not intended to remove the obligation of the court to confiscate a defendant's benefit from particular criminal conduct, they would give the court a discretion not to confiscate a defendant's benefit from his general criminal conduct. If we understand the amendments correctly, because they would not apply to the first case then they are somewhat less objectionable than the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, but for the reasons that I have already given, we still regard them as unacceptable.
Where the conduct of a defendant shows that he has been living a criminal lifestyle in the ways provided for in the legislation, then to be restricted simply to the
44
consequences of the particular offence of which a defendant has been convicted would he a very inadequate way of getting at the proceeds of crime.
5 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the test of "criminal lifestyle" is so dependent on being convicted of certain particular offences that it could well arise even where, in reality, the defendant has not been living on the proceeds of crime?
Lord Goldsmith: If the facts are such, then either the defendant will demonstrate that the assumption that certain property has been acquired as a result of a criminal lifestyle is incorrect, or the court will form the view that there would be a serious risk of injustice in making that particular assumption. I suggest that those are the safeguards which are important and appropriate.
Finally I turn to Amendment No. 78, spoken to by the noble Baroness. It is similar to the previous amendments and would give the court discretion as to whether to find that a defendant had a criminal lifestyle and therefore to make the assumptions at all. That is absolutely diametrically opposed to the existing legislation, a statute brought forward by the noble Baroness's own party in the last administration. It would mean rowing back from the existing position and, in the Government's view, it would undermine the effectiveness of this legislation.
For those reasons, we cannot support the amendments. I hope that they will be withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Generally, when counsel makes an application to a judge in court, he does not know what the result of that application is going to be, however confident he may feel. What is envisaged under this legislation is that the prosecutor will say, "I have decided, in the exercise of my discretion and in exercising my independent judgment—that is, independent of the Attorney-General and anyone else—to make this application. You have no choice. You must enter upon the inquiry which I now require you to make". I find it constitutionally unacceptable for such a power to rest simply with the prosecutor. The judge will have no control over an application made to him in court.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General surely was setting his case rather high when he said that giving a discretion to the judge to stop such an application on the threshold would amount to a serious and dramatic weakening of the legislation. I would be interested to know between now and Report stage whether any instance has come to the Attorney-General's notice where an application by a prosecutor has been refused on the threshold by a judge. If that is the case, what were the circumstances and the reasons given by the judge for exercising the current discretion that he has in cases other than drugs cases?
Viscount Bledisloe: I agree with much of the reply given by the noble and learned Lord. The amendments

45
are too wide. Apart from anything else, under Amendment No. 13 a judge would have to decide whether it was appropriate to proceed before he had investigated the matter.
None the less, there will be exceptional cases. The noble and learned Lord accepted my suggestion that blackmail may be exceptional. When asked by the prosecutor or the director for an order, could not the judge have the power to decide not to proceed in exceptional circumstances? Such an amendment has not been asked for but perhaps the noble and learned Lord will consider the matter.
The noble and learned Lord spoke about the prosecutor as though it would always be the Crown Prosecution Service which would ask for an order. It may be unlikely in relation to the offences to which we are referring but there is always the possibility of a private prosecution—and a private prosecutor may be singularly unreasonable in what he may ask for in relation to a victim. I do not ask for an answer now, but will the noble and learned Lord consider before the next stage whether it might be appropriate to give the court a residual discretion, limited to exceptional circumstances, to decide not to proceed even if the prosecutor or the director has asked it to do so?
Lord Goldsmith: I shall not answer now but we always consider carefully what noble Lords say.
Let me make two provisional comments. First, when I dealt with the blackmail example, I was pointing to the fact that the court has the ability to say that it is inappropriate to make the assumption because there would be a serious risk of injustice. We should not overlook that extremely important safeguard and the safeguard where the defendant shows that the assumption is incorrect.
Secondly, the Director of Public Prosecutions has the ability to take over proceedings started by a private prosecutor. So where a private prosecutor is thought to be abusing whatever power he may have—whether bringing a prosecution or taking a particular step in the process—there is always the remedy that the director (and therefore the Crown Prosecution Service) can step in and exercise his judgment in relation to the case.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his response. Perhaps I did not make it clear that, in speaking to Amendments Nos. 11 and 13, I was seeking to set a comparison between having the discretion right at the beginning or later. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that it is too early—notwithstanding the debate that took place in another place—because the information that underlies a request for an investigation is not in front of the judge or magistrate, in which case it would make sense to see some discretion kick in at a later stage. That is the purpose behind Amendment No. 15.
I wondered how long it would be before the noble and learned Lord made reference to what I said at Second Reading, as I was sure he would. I stand by what I said then because we are not in any way
46
diminishing the ability of the legislation to be workable and effective by proposing Amendment No. 13. It will not remove a major plank of the scheme. It simply seeks to give discretion to the court to address the individual circumstances of the case. It would mitigate the potentially onerous and time-wasting impact of this provision.
The noble and learned Lord said that it would be unlikely in the extreme that the prosecutor would use this procedure unnecessarily, but surely that is not a good reason for removing any discretion. We are simply proposing the introduction into the legislation of an important, tested and tried safeguard. I have heard what the noble and learned Lord has said and I shall read it with care in Hansard. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert "as having taken place after this Act comes into force"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 12, I shall not speak to Amendment No. 88, with which it is grouped.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to ensure that the Bill is not applied retrospectively. Throughout the Bill, the possession of the alleged proceeds of crime and an alleged criminal lifestyle derived from those proceeds is differentiated— hence the alleged criminal lifestyle may have taken place many years previously and yet proceedings in relation to current possession of alleged proceeds is deemed a current and not retrospective offence.
Retrospective legislation lacks clarity and raises issues of unfairness because of the time that has passed. The burden of proof is of a civil standard and in confiscation proceedings it shifts to the suspect. At the very least we consider 12 years to be too long a period given that the Inland Revenue requires documentation to be held for only six years. I beg to move.
Viscount Bledisloe: I am wholly opposed to the amendment. Quite apart from the fact that it is inelegantly worded, it is a misapplication of the presumption against retrospective legislation, which is that actions should not be criminalised or made illegal after they have been carried out. To say that a new procedure designed to get back the proceeds of what was always criminal is retrospective legislation and objectionable is entirely contrary to the principles against retrospectivity.
Lord Rooker: As a starting point, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that recovery of the proceeds of crime can never be unjust. It does not matter when the crime was committed as long as there has been a conviction.
Our view is that confiscation orders made after the commencement of the Bill which deal with general criminal conduct should be able to recover the benefit

47
from conduct that took place at any time. The penalty attaches to the offence of which the defendant has been convicted rather than to the offence for which the benefit is being confiscated. This interpretation has been endorsed by the Court of Appeal and the Strasbourg Court in the case of Taylor.
Any other interpretation would make the legislation completely unworkable because lawyers—I almost said my learned friends—would be queuing up on behalf of defendants to argue whether the property in question derived from a crime and when the crime was committed. The split in the current legislation between drug trafficking and other crimes has caused difficulties because defendants have sought to argue that the property was derived from different types of crime and they somehow think, "Well, that is okay then. If it is one type of crime, that is okay".
As I said, the recovery of the proceeds of crime cannot be unjust. The amendment would provide a loophole which would be easy to exploit. Criminals would argue that the crime giving rise to the benefit was committed before the relevant cut-off date. I ask the noble Baroness to reconsider the matter. I am sure that having done so she will not press her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his firm response. I had been encouraged to propose the amendment by members of the legal profession, which perhaps explains his response that learned friends would be queuing up. I say no more than that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 5, leave out "on a balance of probabilities" and insert "to the standard of proof applicable in civil proceedings"
The noble Lord said: The amendment is about the standard of proof applicable in civil proceedings, which is generally on a balance of probabilities. However, as I know many noble Lords will be aware, the degree of probability varies from case to case. When considering whether a defendant has been guilty of a criminal offence, a civil court will naturally want a higher degree of probability than it would require in, for example, an allegation of negligence. A civil court would not go so far as to apply the criminal standard of proof, but would look for a degree of probability commensurate with the issue. They usually apply a certain amount of common sense and flexibility in conducting that task.
Clause 6 provides that any questions arising under subsections (4) or (5) must be decided on a balance of probabilities. In my submission, that is an unacceptable constraint on a civil court. That court must be given flexibility. We believe that it is better to provide that decisions must be proved to the standard of proof applicable in civil proceedings rather than invariably on a balance of probability. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the amendment. The expression "balance of probabilities" is well
48
known and well used, but it is slightly unsatisfactory, because it could mean, for example, that when there are two competing sets of facts that are almost equally improbable, the less improbable one will succeed. The civil courts seek to achieve an acceptable degree of probability, which is a slightly different concept.
In the context of this legislation, the decision as to whether a person enjoys a criminal lifestyle depends on whether he has been convicted of an offence set out in the schedule or had three convictions within a particular period or over a period of six months. The fundamental point is that there has already been a conviction of conduct beyond reasonable doubt to the criminal standard. The issue is, in subsection (4), whether the criminal has benefited by his criminal conduct and, in subsection (5), what is the recoverable amount, having regard to the extent to which he has benefited.
On that latter question of the recoverable amount depends the possibility of a lengthy term of imprisonment. In default of payment of a sum in excess of £1 million, for example, a person can be sentenced to serve 10 years' imprisonment. There is a reducing scale from there. Loss of liberty is certainly involved.
The civil standard of proof is well understood to require something more than a balance of probability if a person's liberty is involved. Perhaps it is best expressed in the words of Justice Dixon in an Australian case called Briginshaw. He said:
"The seriousness of an allegation made … the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters 'reasonable satisfaction' should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences. Everyone must feel that, when, for instance, the issue is on which of two dates an admitted occurrence took place, a satisfactory conclusion may be reached on materials of the kind that would not satisfy any sound and prudent judgment if the question was whether some act had been done involving grave moral delinquency".
His point is that the more serious the effect on a person, the greater the degree of probability that is required. In this case, when the possibility of long terms of imprisonment can be imposed by way of default, it is essential that the civil standard of proof, as understood in the courts, should be applied, not merely the rather trite phrase "the balance of probabilities".
Lord Rooker: The amendments revisit a theme that has been used previously in the Bill. In its simplest terms, the Government's intention is that the standard of proof applied in confiscation proceedings should be the flexible civil standard. We believe that the fact that the Bill refers to the balance of probabilities does not make any difference in that respect. The Bill refers to the balance of probabilities rather than to the standard applicable in civil proceedings because we have received advice that in some civil proceedings, such as those for contempt, the applicable standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. We want to make it clear that that standard of proof—beyond reasonable

49
doubt—does not apply in confiscation proceedings. The use of the expression "the balance of probabilities" helps to achieve that end. Nor do we believe that the expression "the balance of probabilities" applies a lower standard of proof to confiscation proceedings than the civil standard. We are fortified in our view on this point by earlier case law, although—I am going to put myself in a pit here— I do not have one to quote. If need be, I shall get one. Briefly, the effect of the jurisprudence is that the references to the balance of probabilities import flexibility, but, at the same time, require a standard lower than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
I hope that that explains our position. We want to be able to use the flexible civil standard, but we have received advice that in some proceedings, particularly contempt proceedings, that has been interpreted as beyond reasonable doubt, which would go much too far for confiscation proceedings.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for that extremely helpful reply. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord's statement read out many times in the High Court when this matter is addressed by counsel. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"DISPOSAL OF FAMILY HOME: ENGLAND AND WALES
(1) This section applies where a confiscation order has been made in relation to any person and the prosecutor has not satisfied the court that the person's interest in his family home has been acquired as a benefit from his criminal conduct.
(2) Where this section applies, then, before the administrator disposes of any right or interest in the person's family home he shall—

(a) obtain the relevant consent; or

(b) where he is unable to do so, apply to the court for authority to carry out the disposal.

(3) On an application being made to it under subsection (2)(b), the court, after having regard to all the circumstances of the case including—

(a) the needs and financial resources of the spouse or former spouse of the person concerned;

(b) the needs and financial resources of any child of the family;

(c) the length of the period during which the family home has been used as a residence by any of the persons referred to in paragraph (a) or (b),

may refuse to grant the application or may postpone the granting of the application for such period (not exceeding twelve months) as it may consider reasonable in the circumstances or may grant the application subject to such conditions as it may prescribe.
(4) Subsection (3) shall apply—

(a) to art action for division and sale of the family home of the person concerned; or

(b) to an action for the purpose of obtaining vacant possession of that home,

50
brought by the administrator as it applies to an application under subsection (2)(b) and, for the purposes of this subsection, any reference in subsection (3) to the granting of the application shall be construed as a reference to the granting of decree in the action.
(5) In this section—
"family home", in relation to any person (in this subsection referred to as "the relevant person") means any property in which the relevant person has or had (whether alone or in common with any other person) a right or interest, being property which is occupied as a residence by the relevant person and his or her spouse or by the relevant person's spouse or former spouse (in any case with or without a child of the family) or by the relevant person with a child of the family;
"child of the family" includes any child or grandchild of either the relevant person, or his or her spouse or former spouse, and any person who has been treated by either the relevant person, or his or her spouse or former spouse, as if he or she were a child of the relevant person, spouse or former spouse, whatever the age of such a child, grandchild or person may be;
"relevant consent" means in relation to the disposal of any right or interest in a family home—

(a) in a case where the family home is occupied by the spouse or former spouse of the relevant person, the consent of the spouse or, as the case may be, of the former spouse, whether or not the family home is also occupied by the relevant person;

(b) where paragraph (a) does not apply, in a case where the family home is occupied by the relevant person with a child of the family, the consent of the relevant person."

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 17, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 148, a related amendment applying to Northern Ireland.
Clause 101 gives certain limited rights to the spouse or former spouse of a person in relation to whom a confiscation order has been made and to children of the family. It applies where the family home has not been acquired as a benefit from criminal conduct. If that is the case, it will be necessary before the disposal of a family home to obtain the consent of the occupying spouse or the authority of the court.
On an application for such authority, the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the needs and financial resources of the spouse or former spouse and the needs and financial resources of any child of the family. The court then decides whether to give its full authority. However, it can postpone any disposal for such period not exceeding 12 months as it may consider reasonable in the circumstances. It can also grant such authority subject to such conditions as it may prescribe. That gives some protection to a spouse, former spouse or children of the family.
The curiosity of Clause 101 is that it applies only in Scotland. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland—however great the need of a spouse, former spouse or the children of the family, and however pressing the circumstances of the case—the court will never have an opportunity to postpone giving authority for even a couple of months. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, there is no necessity to obtain the relevant consent or to ask the court for authority to carry out the disposal.

51
Although I appreciate that there are interesting historical reasons for spouses and children being treated better in Scotland, historical reasons cannot justify what would otherwise be an injustice. Surely, it cannot be right that spouses and children are treated better in Scotland than they are in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. All must be treated the same. Today, regardless of history, we must ensure that that happens. The proposed new clauses will give spouses, former spouses and the children of the family exactly the same rights in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as they will have in Scotland.
There is one drafting point. References in Amendment No. 17 to "the administrator" should be read as "the receiver" to reflect the fact that we are talking about confiscation proceedings in England and Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I support this pair of amendments. As I understand it, their effect would be to shift the burden of proof in relation to the family home in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Whereas the Bill currently provides that it is in general for the defendant to prove that property has been acquired innocently, in Scotland Clause 101 puts the burden of proof on the prosecution to show that the family home has been acquired as a benefit from criminal conduct. If that is satisfied, it is clear that Clause 101 will have no application, as Clause 101(1) states that,
"This section applies where a confiscation order has been made … and the prosecutor has not satisfied the court that the person's interest in his family home has been acquired as a benefit from his criminal conduct".
Clearly, therefore, even in Scotland, if the home is the proceeds of crime, there will be no power to defer the operation of the Bill.
We say in other amendments which have not yet been considered that the burden of proof on the defendant should be an evidential and not an absolute one, so that if credible evidence of innocent acquisition is produced by the defendant, it will be for the prosecution to prove that the acquisition has been made from the profits of crime. If those amendments are accepted, Clause 101 will not be needed.
Assuming that these amendments are not successful, Clause 101 seems wholly and entirely reasonable, not only in Scotland but across the entire United Kingdom. We believe that it should be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom. It has a very limited operation. First, as has been said, it will not apply if it has been established that the home comes from the proceeds of crime. Secondly, Clause 101 does not prevent the court ordering a sale. If there is a house with eight bedrooms, a swimming pool, a large garden and a garage for five cars, the court would be unlikely to refuse an order for sale. However, if the prosecution cannot establish on the balance of probabilities that the house represents the proceeds of crime, we firmly believe that the court should have a discretion to defer the sale for a limited time to enable the other members of the defendant's family to avoid all the deeply
52
unpleasant consequences that could result from immediate ejection from the house in which they are living.
Lord Rooker: Although there may seem to be a contradiction, I do not think that the differences are as great as they may at first sight appear. I hope that Members of the Committee can agree a settled position during our consideration of the Bill.
The amendments concern the exercise by the courts and the receivers of the power to realise property in satisfaction of a confiscation order. The English and Northern Irish legislation, both currently and in the Bill, require the defendant's interest in his or her home to be realised if that is necessary to satisfy a confiscation order. The legislation applies whether the interest has been legally or illegally obtained, in accordance with the general principle that a confiscation order, like a fine, is enforceable against any property. I should make it clear that we are talking only about the defendant's interest in the home. If the defendant's spouse has a beneficial interest in the home—for example, from helping to pay the mortgage with his or her earnings—the court must allow the third-party spouse to retain it.
Conversely, Part 3 of the Bill reflects a longstanding provision in the Scottish confiscation legislation that gives the Scottish court the power ultimately to refuse the realisation of the defendant's interest in his home in satisfaction of a confiscation order. As I think has been clearly identified, the power applies only to a legally acquired interest of the defendant, and is exercisable only where the court is satisfied that the defendant's spouse or another specified relative has asserted a claim to occupancy. So the position is not as black and white as it may seem.
As was pointed out in another place, the provision on the family home in Part 3 replicates earlier Scottish confiscation legislation in the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995. The 1995 Act developed briefer provision along the same lines in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987. Therefore, as noble Lords can see, the difference has been around for about 15 years. The confiscation legislation in the three jurisdictions is different because Scottish law adopts a different approach to the occupancy rights of spouses in general.
The Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 gives a right to occupy the matrimonial home to spouses who are not owners or tenants and provides for the protection of their occupancy rights, regardless of whether they have any beneficial interest in the home. These are referred to as non-entitled spouses, and they are protected by sections 6 to 9 of the 1981 Act from dealings by the entitled spouse. What that means is that protection is given against dealings which might include giving up the tenancy or selling the home. There is no directly equivalent legislation in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.
As we have already made clear, there are arguments in favour of both the position in Parts 2 and 4 of the Bill, and that in Part 3. One argument maintains that

53
the proceeds of crime should never be capable of retention and that a confiscation order should be enforceable against any realisable property. On the other hand, there is the argument that family circumstances may be so particular on occasion that the retention of the lawfully obtained value of the proceeds of crime may be justified.
The difficulty here, I freely admit, is that there is an argument both ways. There is no doubt about that. There is an element of principle in both approaches. We intend, therefore, to leave Parts 2, 3 and 4 as they stand but we shall monitor the operation. That is crucial. This is a fundamental change in legislation in terms of ensuring that people do not retain the proceeds of crime. We shall monitor those parts closely for any consequences flowing from the decision to retain the differences in the legislation.
To show that an element of principle is involved in both approaches, I should add that we have examined all three parts from the point of view of the European Convention on Human Rights. We are satisfied that the approaches are consistent with that convention. While Article 8 of the convention protects a person's home, that right must be balanced by virtue of paragraph 2 of Article 8 against other factors; in this instance the public interest in ensuring that criminals do not retain the benefits from their crimes. Nor do we see an arguable case under Article 14 of the convention over that issue.
I freely admit that the issue will probably be around until the Bill becomes an Act. However, I hope that I have made clear why we are unable to accept the amendments. We accept that there are different approaches. I hope I have given an explanation of the reasons for them. However, as I said, once the Bill reaches the statute book and is in operation, we shall monitor closely the consequences.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his full response. The matter was debated at some length in another place. However, we consider it to be of such importance that it should be revisited here and we should continue to look at it. As the Minister said, there is no directly-equivalent legislation in England and Wales to that set out for Scotland. Our response is that that is no argument for inconsistency.
We shall not detain the Committee. We shall read with care the Minister's response and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 7 [Time for making order]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Rooker: As the Committee is aware, I oppose the Question that Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill. In doing so, I speak also to the other government amendments in this group. The decision bears on the subject of postponement. It will be convenient to
54
consider with that a number of related government and opposition amendments. Perhaps I may provide the Committee with a brief exposition of the reasons for the deletion of Clause 7 and for tabling the related amendments, and then turn to the opposition amendments.
Clause 7 states that a confiscation order must be made before sentence. However, that is subject to Clause 16, which makes clear that if confiscation proceedings are postponed under Clause 15, a confiscation order may be made after sentence. It was objected to in the other place that Clause 7 should refer forward to Clause 16 to make that clear. In considering the issue, we have consulted the prosecuting authorities. We understand that nowadays confiscation proceedings are generally postponed, so sentence will often be passed before a confiscation order is made.
It seems to us that the very stark terms of Clause 7 imply that a confiscation order should normally be made before sentence and that confiscation proceedings will be postponed only exceptionally. However, that is not what happens at present. With the wider use of confiscation orders which we hope to achieve as a result of the Bill, no doubt they will be made in future in many more straightforward cases than at present. Where a confiscation order is straightforward it is more likely to be made before sentence without the need for the proceedings to be postponed. Perhaps at some future date it might even be the norm for confiscation orders to be made before sentence.
We would prefer the Bill to leave the matter open. We think that it would be better to avoid any implication either way. We would expect a confiscation order to be made before or after sentence, whichever is more appropriate in the particular case. The amendments, together with the deletion of Clause 7, achieve that end. The amendments are designed to improve the practical operation of the Bill and deal with an issue raised in the other place.
Without seeking to pre-empt any speeches on opposition amendments, perhaps I may comment on them, starting with Amendment No. 29. The effect of the amendment would be to reduce the normal maximum period of postponement from two years to six months. However, an amendment on similar lines was tabled and not pressed to a Division in another place. In that instance it was proposed to reduce the maximum period from two years to either six months or, indeed, three months. I refer the Committee to Hansard of 22nd November 2001.
As we pointed out on that occasion, the current arrangements for the postponement of confiscation hearings in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, which provide for a maximum period of six months, were carefully examined in the report of the Performance and Innovation Unit. The defects of the current arrangements are discussed in some detail in that report.
Paragraph 8.22 of the report concluded that the short six-month deadline meant that some confiscation orders could not be obtained due to

55
simple administrative delay occasioned, for example, by lack of court time or the unavailability of the trial judge. We agree with the conclusions expressed in the report that six months is far too short a period. A longer period may routinely be needed for all sorts of reasons. For example, the requirement to obtain evidence from abroad can lead to a delay of several months. Nor would we want defendants to be able to frustrate the purposes of confiscation by stalling in the hope that the six months will expire. That is another important point which is brought out in the PIU report. Therefore, the Government will not support the amendment.
Perhaps I may briefly refer to opposition Amendments Nos. 30, 111 and 155. The basic effect of the amendments would be to require the court to sentence the defendant within three months if it postponed the confiscation proceedings. Bearing in mind the amount of discussion on the court's discretion during the passage of the Bill, it seems odd that the amendment seeks to fetter that discretion. We see no particular reason why the court should be bound by that fixed time limit. For example, it might be ready to make a confiscation order just after the end of the three-month period only to have to hold a hearing to sentence the defendant and then return a week or two later for the confiscation matters. We believe that the court is the best arbiter of the matter. I hope that, while speaking to their amendments, noble Lords will not press them.
Baroness Buscombe: I accept the Minister's comments in respect of Amendment No. 29, wherein we proposed allowing proceedings for a confiscation order under Clause 6 to be postponed for only six months after the date of the defendant's conviction rather than two years as currently set out in the Bill. I accept the Minister's comments. On that basis, I shall not pursue the amendment.
I do not understand why our discussion is not grouped with Clause 162 stand part, which seems to be a mirror of Clause 7 but which relates to Northern Ireland. I put the suggestion to the Minister that it might save time later if it were dealt with now if he accepts that it covers the same point.
Lord Rooker: I am all for saving time. The groupings are offered to me as a humble Minister. We try our best to have groups which are as large as possible so that we can have structured debates. If there is a way in which another group can be merged with this one, that is fine by me. However, I shall need to take advice.
Lord Goodhart: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 30, 111 and 155. Amendment No. 111 relates to Scotland and Amendment No. 155 relates to Northern Ireland.
It is important that a convicted defendant should be sentenced within a reasonably short time of that conviction. When I first saw that under Clause 7 sentence would be deferred until after the confiscation order had been decided on I was seriously worried by
56
its effect. The removal of Clause 7 has to some extent, although not entirely, removed my concerns about the matter.
I quite understand that confiscation orders may take a long time to investigate, and indeed in many cases probably will take a matter of several months. It is entirely inappropriate that a criminal sentence should be overhanging the defendant for the whole of that period. My amendment may be a little rigid and would be improved by giving the court the discretion to decide whether or not to apply it. However, it seems to me that the principle behind the amendment is correct. In normal criminal proceedings a sentence is imposed immediately on conviction, although in a good many cases it may be deferred for a relatively short period of time in order to obtain social and/or psychiatric reports or other information which the judge needs before sentencing.
It is desirable that the Bill should reflect the principle that there should be a reasonably short time within which sentence should be imposed. That is trebly important in cases where a defendant has been remanded in custody and is therefore sitting in prison, having been convicted, not knowing how long his sentence will be. Therefore, we may want to come back to the matter, perhaps in a modified form, at a later stage of these proceedings.
Lord Rooker: As I said when I made my initial remarks, I in no way want to pre-empt Members of the Committee in making their speeches. It is always difficult when speaking to a government proposal that is grouped with opposition amendments to avoid making the same speech twice. I repeat what I said. I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We do not see any reason why the court should be bound to a fixed time limit. Basically, I think that we should leave the matter to the courts.
With regard to the point made by the noble Baroness, I am quite happy to have the debate on Clause 162 stand part as part of this grouping if there nothing more to say about it. I am not exactly clear how that would be done from a procedural point of view. But if it were for the convenience of the Committee and everyone agreed that the Clause 162 stand part debate should form part of this grouping I should be happy for that to happen.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister. We would be entirely happy as the debate on Clause 162 stand part mirrors the debate on Clause 7 stand part.
Clause 7 negatived.
Clause 8 [Recoverable amount]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) But the defendant shall not be held to have benefited to the extent that such benefit has already been forfeited by reason of any other power or enactment."
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 18. Under Clause 6 of the Bill, the Crown Court must, if certain conditions are satisfied, make a

57
confiscation order for what is called the "recoverable amount". Clause 8 provides that the recoverable amount for the purposes of Clause 6,
"is an amount equal to the defendant's benefit from the conduct concerned".
Moreover, subsection (4) of Clause 8 provides:
"In calculating the defendant's benefit from the conduct concerned … any property in respect of which—

(a) a recovery order is in force under section 270, or

(b) a forfeiture order is in force under section 300(2), must be ignored".

Under Clause 9(3) it is provided that the court must deduct from the recoverable amount any,
"amount ordered to be paid under each confiscation order previously made against the defendant",
and any amount,
"ordered to be paid under each confiscation order previously made against him under any of the provisions listed in subsection (4) [of Clause 91".
However, I believe that there may be powers in other enactments which could result in confiscation. It may well he that subsequent enactments will give the court powers to make similar orders with regard to criminal offences.
We believe that the Bill can be improved by making it clear that, when calculating the amount equal to the defendant's benefit from the conduct concerned, one must deduct any benefit otherwise forfeited by reason of any other power or enactment. That will make clear what we believe to be the real intention of the Bill, which is to take everything into account. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: The effect of these amendments would be to require the court to investigate whether any benefit belonging to the defendant had previously been recovered by means of any other power or enactment.
I point out that the Bill already recognises the principle that double counting should not apply. Clause 8(4) for example, requires the court to disregard property subject to a recovery or forfeiture order under Part 5 of the Bill. Additionally, where a confiscation order is made in respect of general criminal conduct, Clause 9(3) requires the court to deduct from the current confiscation order the amount ordered to be paid under any previous confiscation order.
The difficulty with the amendments is that they cast the net beyond previous confiscation orders to any power which may have had the incidental effect of recovering proceeds. The most obvious example of such a power is the power to fine. Another example is Section 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which enables the courts to make forfeiture orders in relation to drugs convictions.
However, there is no formal mechanism in these provisions for calculating the amount of the proceeds recovered. The only legislation dedicated solely and expressly to the recovery of criminal proceeds is currently the confiscation legislation.
Therefore, we currently deal with these types of orders in Clauses 14(2), 100(2) and 170(2), which state that the court must take the confiscation order into
58
account before it imposes such orders on a defendant. If the court postpones making a confiscation order until after sentence it cannot make any of these types of orders until the confiscation order has been calculated. That gives the court the flexibility to take account of what has and what has not been included in the confiscation order.
It is true that Clause 14 will have effect only where property is forfeited into the same proceedings as the confiscation order is made. It does not have effect in cases such as Cadman Smith where the criminal is deprived of assets before the case comes to court. However, where Clause 14 does not apply, we think that it is right to continue to recover the pecuniary advantage as well as forfeiting the goods. It may be helpful to quote what the noble and learned Lord. Lord Rodger, said on the point. He said:
"If, then, the value of property obtained as a result of or in connection with the commission of an offence is simply the value of the property to the offender when he obtained it, even if it is subsequently destroyed, damaged or forfeited, one would expect the same general approach to apply in the case of a pecuniary advantage".
For example, if an offender steals a television and subsequently drops and breaks it while carrying it to his home, he would still be liable to have the value of the television confiscated from him even though he could not sell the television in order to make any money. There is no reason why a pecuniary advantage that has been lost should be treated any differently. The point is that recovering the proceeds of crime is supposed to have a deterrent as well as a restitutory effect. It must be a laudable aim to try to stop it being worth criminals' while avoiding excise duty.
From what I have said, it will be clear that the amendments would force the courts to adopt an over-rigid approach in relation to such orders. It is far better for the courts to have the flexibility given to them under the Bill as drafted. For example, the amendments would require the court making a confiscation order to consider the confiscatory effect of previous fines and other measures not designed for confiscatory purposes. That would make matters extremely difficult because the court imposing such a measure may not give a formal indication of precisely how much of the fine is imposed with recovery in mind and what is intended to be penal.
The amendments would therefore tend to undermine the precise calculations which are central to the concept of confiscation. For that reason, we cannot accept them. I hope that the noble Lord will find my explanation helpful and reasonable and will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am inclined to press the Minister further. He adumbrated the principle that there should be no double counting—that if any previous forfeiture or confiscation in relation to ill-gotten gains has led to the payment of funds or in kind by the offender, that should count against what is designated in the Bill as the proceeds of crime. Would it not be more

59
appropriate to have a general clause to that effect, leaving it to the court to apply that general clause to the specific circumstances of the culprit?
Lord Rooker: I do not think so, for the reasons that I gave. That would go much too far. There must be precision about the confiscation of proceeds of crime. As I made clear, we do not want double counting. I also want to make clear that we shall make appropriate provision in any subsequent enactments to prevent double counting under the Bill.
It is far better that the courts are given flexibility under the Bill. As I said, the amendments would require the court making a confiscation order to consider the confiscatory effect of previous fines and other measures not designed for confiscatory purposes. That would make matters difficult, because, as I said, the court imposing such a measure may not indicate precisely how much of a fine was imposed with recovery in mind and what was intended to be penal—we would not know.
As I said, the amendments would therefore undermine the precision of the calculation, which is crucial to get across the message to the criminal fraternity.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. He has fairly said that he is not inclined to accept our preferred position. In those circumstances, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Geddes,L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Glentoran, L.

Boardman, L.

Goschen, V.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Henley, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Higgins, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Holderness, L.

Burnham, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Buscombe, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Byford, B.

Hylton, L.

Caithness, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jopling, L.

Campbell of Croy,L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

CarnegyofLour, B.

Kingsland, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Laird, L.

Chadlington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Colwyn, L.

Lucas, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Lyell, L.

Craigavon, V.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Elton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Erroll,E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Feldman, L.

Montrose, D.

Ferrers, E.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Flather,B.

Northesk,E.

60

O'Cathain, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Palmer, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Tebbit, L.

Vivian, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Renton, L.

Warnock, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Allenby of Megjddo, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Alli,L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Amos, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Andrews, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jones, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Layard, L.

Bach,L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Barnett,L.

Lipsey, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lofthouseof Pontefract, L.

Berkeley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Blease,L.

Boothroyd, B.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brennan, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brett, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Massey of Darwen, B.

Chan,L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mitchell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Nicol, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Patel, L.

Crawley, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Pendry, L.

David, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Desai, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dixon, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs,L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Elder, L.

Rea, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rooker, L.

Filkin, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Astha, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sheldon, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Simon, V.

Golding, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Turnberg, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grocott, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Weatherill, L.

Harrison, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Whitty, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wilkins, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
"COMPENSATION OF CREDITORS
(1) Any person who was a creditor of the defendant at the time when the confiscation order was made may, within one year of the date of the order, make an application to the court for compensation.
(2) The court may require the enforcement authority to pay compensation to the applicant if it is satisfied that—

(a) as a result of the making of the order the defendant is wholly or in part unable to repay the debt;

(b) the debt was incurred for full consideration; and

(c) at the time the debt was incurred the applicant had no reason to believe that a confiscation order could be made against the defendant."

The noble Lord said: The amendment raises an important issue of principle; namely, the question of priority as between the state and the creditors of a defendant.
On these Benches, we agree fully with the principle that a criminal should he deprived of the proceeds of his crime. However, we also believe that the state has no legal claim to those assets that is equal to that of a creditor who has acted in good faith. If the state deprives a defendant of the money to pay his debts and does not compensate a bona fide creditor, the creditor—not the defendant—will suffer the loss.
It is obvious that we cannot leave a criminal with enough money to pay off his debts. In such a situation, the criminal will pay not them and will choose to use his money for something else. That explains why the identification of the "available amount" in Clause 10 does not include unsecured debts, unless they are preferential debts within the meaning of the bankruptcy legislation. However, it is not clear whether the available amount includes securities. Would a confiscation order override the security of a secured creditor? My initial impression was that it would not, but, having read through the Bill, I am not sure that that is the case. If a confiscation order did override secured debts, there would be serious problems with banks and building societies.
Let us assume that the confiscation order overrides only unsecured debts and that a criminal has entered into a contract with a builder for ordinary work—of some value—to be done to his house. It is a bona fide contract, and the builder does not know that the defendant is a criminal and has no reason to be aware of the risk that a confiscation order will be made. If, after the work is done—on credit terms, as usual—the criminal goes to prison and his assets, including his house, are confiscated, the builder will get nothing.
Assuming that a secured debt will not be overridden, we can see that, if the criminal has borrowed money on a mortgage from a building society or a bank to help him buy the home, the building society or bank will get its money back because it has security. However, on any interpretation of the Bill, the builder will not. Why should not the state, having confiscated the assets out of which the builder would have been paid, be obliged to pay him off? If it does not do that, it is punishing an innocent third party.
62
A bona fide creditor has a higher moral right to the money than the state. It can be said that the state has a duty, in the public interest, to deprive criminals of the benefits of their crime. However, that duty is not infringed by using confiscated money to pay off a bona fide creditor. Of course, accept that it is possible to manufacture artificial debts by, for instance, creating fictitious loans to the defendant. So safeguards are needed to ensure that the only debts that are repaid are those that are made in good faith.
Amendment No. 19 proposes that there should be three conditions for payment of debts out of confiscated money. Those three conditions are, first, that as a result of the confiscation order having been made, the defendant has become unable to pay the unsecured debt. If the confiscation order still leaves the defendant with enough assets to pay his unsecured debts, then that is where the creditor should look for them.
The second condition is that the debt should be paid for full consideration. The third consideration is that the court must be satisfied that the creditor did not have any reason to believe that the defendant was a person against whom a confiscation order might be made and that he had no reason to believe that such an order was likely to be made.
If those conditions are not met—in many cases they will not be easy to meet—the court should require payment of compensation out of the confiscated funds. Amendment No. 63 extends that by allowing debts to be paid out of property if, before it is subject to a confiscation order, it is subject to a restraint order. The remaining amendments apply the same rules in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I understand that the issues raised in these amendments revisit an issue raised in the other place but in a different form. However, I cannot accept the principle behind the new clauses or the amendments. In practical terms their effect would be disastrous on the operation of the legislation.
The Bill recognises the rights of secured creditors to recover their security. A typical example would be where a person has an outstanding mortgage. It would be open to the mortgage company to apply for a variation or discharge of a restraint order under Clause 43(3) in order to recover the debt. There is also provision for such interest to be taken into account if a receiver is appointed at the realisation stage of a confiscation order.
Secured creditors are also protected under the legislation by the legislative steer in Clause 69(3)(a), which states that,
"the powers must be exercised with a view to allowing a person other than the defendant or a recipient of a tainted gift to retain or recover the value of any interest held by him".
The Bill also recognises the prior claims of preferential debts as defined in the insolvency legislation by giving them priority over a confiscation in Clause 10.

63
The only issue before us therefore is whether unsecured creditors should take priority over the settlement of the confiscation order. We do not believe they should. The new clauses provide that they should take priority. It is true that the unsecured lender will be exposed to a wide range of risks; the fact that the borrower may be subject to a confiscation order is only one of them. We are not inventing the risk in that respect. The borrower or recipient of goods or services may turn out to be insolvent, may die without leaving adequate funds in the estate, or may simply default.
The new clauses also overlook the consequences for other obligations to the Crown. For example, are members of the public who owe debts to be absolved thereby from the obligation to pay their taxes? There is an extension for which people would push. Are the courts to be able to require the state to pay the debts of criminals against whom fines, compensation orders, costs and other disposals have been levied? It is preposterous.
The amendment also overlooks the fact that the making of a confiscation order does not absolve the defendant of the obligation to pay his debts. There is no wipe-out of the defendant's debts just because there is a confiscation order. The debts remain payable. Even if the confiscation order takes priority, the defendant has to pay the debts after the confiscation order has been satisfied. In any case, the confiscation order may not consume all the defendant's property. No one has implied during any of our discussions today that that would necessarily be the case.
Lord Goodhart: I entirely understand that. That is why one of the conditions on which our amendment proposes payment should be dependent is that the inability to pay by the defendant derives from the confiscation order having been made. So if the defendant has other assets out of which to pay this order, then no order is made for payment out of the confiscated money.
Lord Rooker: I accept that. But that does not hold up, simply because, taken as a package, the clauses and amendments would have an adverse practical effect on the operation of the effective confiscation system. In a way the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, touched on one aspect of that in his opening speech.
We would be setting up a system that invites claims from bogus creditors who in reality were associates of the defendant. A whole new industry would start up. It would be difficult to prevent and would greatly weaken the confiscation system. What is worse, it would make the legislation inoperable from the enforcement authorities' point of view. The enforcement authorities would undoubtedly be discouraged from pursuing confiscations with the threat of claims from unsecured creditors hanging over them.
64
The end result of the amendments would be to encourage defendants to defeat the confiscation process by running up legitimate debts, safe in the knowledge that the authorities would be left out of pocket at the end of any confiscation.
Of course, other assets are not taken into account in the amendments. That factor must also be noted. The amendments to Clauses 42, 123 and 196 would have a similar effect even before a confiscation was made, for reasons similar to those I have given. A restraint order currently prevents the defendant from paying his debts. That is how it should remain. For those reasons I hope that the proposed amendments will not be pursued. They are wrong in principle and in practice for the reasons I set out.
Viscount Goschen: Before the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, responds to the Minister, does the Minister agree that this amendment highlights a potential situation where, notwithstanding the points made by the Minister in terms of bogus creditors and so forth, which the noble Lord sought to address within his amendment, the action of the state, in imposing a confiscation order, could force companies into bankruptcy because the party with whom they contracted was the subject of a major confiscation order which substantially changed their financial circumstances? Does the Minister feel, therefore, that it would be a just situation if, as a result of a confiscation order, a company which had contracted with the guilty party in good faith was forced into bankruptcy?
Lord Rooker: I would not want anyone to be forced into bankruptcy. But it is the way of the world. People are dealing with companies day in and day out. The fact is that the underlying principle of this legislation is to reduce crime by depriving criminals of the proceeds of crime. If anyone is going to make the claim that the whole economy, even for the good guys, is running on the basis of the bad guys, I cannot accept that.
Lord Goodhart: I am deeply disappointed, and indeed astonished, by the extent to which I received a negative reply from the Minister. A real problem exists here. It may not affect a great many people, but it will certainly affect some.
The Minister said that, of course, a creditor runs many risks—bankruptcy of the debtor, and so on—and of course he does. But if, as a creditor, I had given entirely bona fide credit to someone and the reason that I did not have that debt paid was because a confiscation order had taken away all the debtor's money, I should regard the state as having stolen that money from me. The Government should think again about the matter. I disagree that it will sabotage the operation of the scheme. It seems perfectly possible for the court to deal with the problem without a great deal of effort. Some effort would be necessary and entirely appropriate.
While today I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, it is likely that I shall bring it back at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 11 [Assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 113, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) the defendant adduces sufficient evidence to raise an issue with respect to the matter"
The noble Lord said: I shall speak briefly to the amendment because its substance will be familiar to the Minister. It reflects a view espoused among others by Justice.
As the Committee is aware, reverse onus of proof clauses do not necessarily breach paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, our courts have held that the imposition of a persuasive burden of proof on the defendant in respect of the crucial elements of an offence breaches paragraph 2 of Article 6. For example, in R v Lambert the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House held that, in accordance with the principle of proportionality reverse onuses of proof clauses in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 should impose only an evidential rather than a persuasive burden of proof in order to comply with paragraph 2 of Article 6.
Although it may be open to the courts to interpret Clause 11 so as to impose an evidential burden only in accordance with the Human Rights Act, in my submission it should be clarified on the face of the legislation' that the burden to be imposed is evidential rather than persuasive. Indeed, reverse onus of proof clauses in recent legislation have been expressly drafted so as to impose an evidential burden only following human rights concerns expressed in your Lordships' House and another place—for example, in Section 118 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or Section 53(3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
In short, a similar provision in Clause 11 would help to ensure that the reverse onus clauses in the Bill are applied in accordance with the principles of the convention. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In supporting the amendment, speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 and their concurrent amendments in relation to Scotland. We are concerned also with the substitution of the legal or persuasive burden of proof as currently drafted with an evidential burden.
The general and sensible principle of litigation, whether civil or criminal, is that he who asserts must prove. It is difficult to prove a negative. Negative evidence is always circumstantial or indirect where a respondent must prove the existence of a fact, or a series of facts, which is or are inconsistent with the fact which his opponent is asserting and he seeks to disprove.
We have here in straightforward language a reverse burden of proof which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, always attracts the interest of the
66
lawyers who are engaged in considering the provisions of the European convention. The clause states that property transferred, held or purchased is the result of the respondent's general criminal conduct. That is the presumption that the court must make unless there is evidence to the contrary. As drafted, the respondent must prove a series of facts which are inconsistent with that proposition. For example, he must prove that he has been given money, won money on the horses, has had a bonus from the Stock Exchange or has had money from specific innocent sources. In principle, that is far too heavy a burden to impose upon an individual. The evidential burden should replace that which is drafted so that the respondent may discharge that burden by adducing evidence of a reasonable possibility of the existence of such facts and then leave it to the applicant—whether it is the prosecutor or whoever—to establish overall that the property is indeed the proceeds of crime.
Lord Goodhart: Amendments Nos. 25, 105 and 153 relate to a parallel matter but are not consequential on the earlier amendments with regard to what happens if an application is dismissed.
Under Clause 11(7), if the court does not make one or more of the required assumptions it must state its reasons. Whether or not the burden of proof is changed, if there is a serious challenge to the assumptions, even if that assumption were accepted and the challenge to it dismissed, the court should state its reasons. In such a case there would be the possibility of an appeal. It is surely a basic principle that where an issue has been debated fully before a court the court should be required to give its reasons whichever way that decision goes.
I do not suggest that the court should be required to give its reasons where there is effectively no challenge to the assumption. But where a serious challenge is made, natural justice requires that the court should be required to give its reasons whichever way it decides.
Lord Goldsmith: The key question is whether what is a persuasive burden should become an evidential burden.
The starting point must be the state of the existing law. The state of the existing law both under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and the Criminal Justice A ct 1988 is that the burden is on the defendant. It is not simply an evidential but a persuasive burden. Those provisions have been considered by this House and in the Court in Strasbourg and have been found in the circumstances to be acceptable.
What are those circumstances? The circumstances are that it is notorious that criminals can hide, through a paper trail—or a paperless trail—where proceeds of crime have gone. Secondly, there is the great practical problem of dealing with the situation. I indicated and do so again that if the defendant simply had to reply to a question, he could say, "The £10,000 that you found I won on gambling", or "I was given it by a man whose name I can no longer recall". Unconvincing though those statements may be, it would be for the prosecutor or the director to prove, contrary to those

67
assertions, that the money had come from a criminal source. In practical terms, that would be extremely difficult.
The defendant will always be in the best position to account for his assets. He will be able to say from where they came and how he acquired them. As I understand it, that is why the courts have accepted that while often, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, it would be inappropriate to place on a defendant a burden of proving something in proceedings, in this situation the legislation so provides and the courts at the highest level have accepted that it is legitimate and proportionate in the circumstances.
Having regard to the fact that there is the additional safeguard of the serious risk of injustice proviso, the Government strongly take the view, as they did in another place, that it would not be appropriate to change the basis upon which the burden is set at present in the Bill. That is in no way unreasonable having regard to the practical problem and the fact that it is not an imposition on a defendant to explain where his property came from, bearing in mind that we are concerned with someone who has been convicted of a criminal offence. At this stage we accept only cases that arise after a criminal conviction. On the contrary, as upheld in the highest courts, it is reasonable, proportionate and legitimate.
I turn briefly to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, of whether the court should give reasons. I have no doubt that the court will, in the kind of case to which the noble Lord referred, give reasons that will be recorded in a transcript, although there may be exceptional circumstances where that does not happen. In this place one must never say "always" because one never knows to what use it will be put hereafter. I would expect any court, before whom there has been a debate about whether an assumption is appropriate and it has decided to reject a defendant's case, or even to accept it, to give those reasons. I anticipate that that would happen in practice. With respect, I do not see a need to spell that out on the face of the legislation.
With what comfort my statement of expectation brings, at least in that respect, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment. As to the main basis of the amendment, the opposition is strong for the reasons that I have given.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I thought that the noble and learned Lord would reply as he did. I understand his reasons for doing so. On the one hand, noble Lords have to address the interests of society in ensuring that conduct of the kind that we are seeking to penalise is properly penalised and, on the other hand, your Lordships have to balance against that the rights of the individual in the context of paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Your Lordships have to decide, as a matter of constitutional judgment, in which direction to lean. Our preliminary view is that the contents of the amendment reflect the
68
right balance. However, the noble and learned Lord is always persuasive at the Dispatch Box; so I shall read carefully what he said, reflect on it and consider whether to return to the matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 14, leave out "serious" and insert "real"
The noble Baroness said: In Clause 11 the court must make certain assumptions for the purposes of deciding whether or not a defendant has benefited from his general criminal conduct and for the purposes of deciding his benefit from the conduct. Those assumptions are set out in that clause. Those assumptions are, however, rebuttable assumptions. By subsection (6) a court must not make an assumption if the assumption is shown to be incorrect. The same subsection provides that the court must not make an assumption if there is a serious risk of injustice if the assumption were made.
We believe that that threshold is too high. We agree that if there were a serious risk of injustice, the assumption should not be made. We believe that if there is a real, as opposed to a serious risk, of injustice the assumption should not be made either. Our amendment seeks to replace the word "serious" with the word "real" which would lower the threshold to a more acceptable level. If the Bill remains in its current form, the court will have to make certain assumptions even where there is a real risk of injustice. Surely that cannot be right. While I have little sympathy with convicted criminals who have a criminal lifestyle, it is not right that we stoop to their level by subjecting them to a real risk of injustice. However low a man may be, he is still entitled to justice and if there is a real risk of injustice should certain assumptions be made, those assumptions should not be made. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Although we have not put our names to these amendments, we on these Benches support them.
Lord Goldsmith: This is a short point. The existing legislation—the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988—uses the same expression as appears in the Bill, "serious risk of injustice". We want to maintain the concept in the existing legislation which has caused no difficulty.
The footnote to that is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, in one of the judgments to which I referred earlier indicating that the reverse burden was acceptable, proportionate and legitimate, used those words. In the context of legislation that uses the expression "serious risk of injustice", he talked about whether there is or may be a serious or real risk of injustice. So it appears that in this House no real distinction, in any event, is judicially drawn between the two words. The main point is that we would not want to depart from the existing language which has

69
caused no difficulty. I hope that the noble Baroness finds that explanation helpful and will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Attorney General for his response to the amendments. With great respect, I believe that there is a difference between "serious" and "real". Something can be real without being serious. I hear what he has said in relation to current law, but I still believe that what I have set out is correct, or more just. We shall consider the matter further and may return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) Evidence that any property was transferred to or obtained by the defendant as winnings from betting or gaming is not evidence which shows that the first or second assumption is incorrect."
The noble Lord said: This is meant as a probing amendment. It proposes that there should be a new subsection which states that,
"Evidence that any property was transferred to or obtained by the defendant as, winnings from betting or gaming is not evidence which shows that the first or second assumption [in Clause 11] is incorrect".
Claiming that money has been acquired as winnings from gambling is in fact one of the easiest ways of laundering it. It is perfectly possible to do that while at the same time producing perfectly genuine documentation to show that winnings have been obtained. Let us take an obvious example. It would be perfectly possible in a race between, say, six horses to put a suitable level of bet on each horse. One claims the winnings and one has documentation to prove it, but simply destroys the documentation which shows that one also had losses on the same race.
It may well be—I hope it is the case—that the Minister will be able to say that my fears about this are ungrounded because if anyone claims that winnings were obtained from gambling he would also have to establish that the stake money itself was not obtained from the proceeds of crime. If it is, or it cannot be shown to have been obtained innocently, then the gambling winnings are also potentially subject to a confiscation order. If that is not the case, then something of the kind proposed in this amendment—I am not suggesting that the drafting is perfect—is required in order to stop up what otherwise might be a serious loophole in the operation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: The noble Lord has raised one point to which I want to return concerning the stake money. But first I want to deal with the basic point, which I understood to lie behind the amendment: to disentitle a defendant from asserting that property was acquired as a result of gaming. The reason that we could not accept the amendment, to the extent that it precludes a defendant from doing that, is that indeed he may have received moneys from gaming. As I
70
believe I indicated at Second Reading, we were sympathetic to the thrust of the point made by the noble Lord in that he is right in identifying a possible way in which a defendant might seek to explain his earnings. He would still have to demonstrate that that was the case. He would have to show that the assumption was incorrect.
The fact is that besides gaming almost any use of cash can be relied on in the same way to explain why assets have been acquired. Equally, if the defendant dealt in cash as part of his business he could claim that money coming into it explained away criminal assets, but not alert the court to the fact that cash was also going out of his business. Any attempt to try to deal with this problem in the way proposed would result in an unacceptable level of injustice to the defendant. That is the main thrust of the point.
The noble Lord raised the additional question to which I shall not venture an answer this afternoon: what would the court make of a situation where these were the facts—that the court was satisfied that moneys had been obtained from gaming, but that the stake had itself been the proceeds of crime? I simply do not know how likely it is that the court would get into that factual situation. Everything is theoretical and therefore very interesting for lawyers to consider. One would need to consider whether, as regards Clause 11, the relevant assumption would be that the property was obtained as a result of general criminal conduct, and whether the court would say, if it was obtained as a result of using a stake which was the proceeds of crime, that that in itself constitutes for these purposes property obtained by reason of criminal conduct. I do not want to venture an answer to that, but simply pose the question. I undertake to give further thought to it. As regards the basic amendment, for the reasons I have given, and respecting the spirit in which lit has been put forward, it cannot be accepted.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that answer. We are concerned to strengthen the Bill where we believe it needs strengthening. We believe that this amendment applies to one of those places. I accept that one cannot justify a general prohibition on all winnings from gaming being treated as though they were part of the proceeds of crime. But I believe that if' there is a burden on the defendant to prove the source of assets, there should be a burden on the defendant to prove that the stake money which produced the winnings was itself innocent money rather than money acquired by crime. Unless in the interim the Government produce something which is more acceptable, it could be a matter we would wish to return to at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Time for Payment]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 2, leave out from "period" to end of line 3.

71
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to seek to prevent fettering the discretion of the court in exceptional cases. It concerns time for payment under a confiscation order.
There are frequently persons who have been convicted of offences and against whom confiscation orders have been made, but who do not have funds to pay them; for example, persons who have been convicted of supplying drugs to feed their own habit and, following sentence, they and their family are legitimately on benefit with no assets. Currently, those persons are ordered to pay, say, £2 or £5 per week towards the confiscation order. If there are no means with which to pay then a mandatory time limit is pointless and could lead to a default prison sentence with the order still to pay. We suggest that these are not the categories of persons against whom the Bill is aimed, but they may commonly fall within its remit. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I shall reply to the thrust of the amendment. It is technically defective in that Clause 12(4) would need to be deleted to give indefinite time to pay. The only effect of this amendment as it stands is that an application could be made at any time after the end of the specified period. But if the 12 months has already expired under Clause 12(4) the court would not be able to grant the application.
The effect of the amendment is to give the court the power to grant unlimited time to pay a confiscation order. Clause 12 sets out to address one of the main problems of the current system for enforcing confiscation orders. They are basically enforced like Crown Court fines.
One of the consequences of the regime is that the Crown Court, when it makes a confiscation order, has the power to allow payment by instalments and time to pay. There is some evidence of the unacceptable use of the present powers. We are informed that the present typical period seems to be between two and three years. To improve matters we are abolishing payment by instalments and placing a finite limit on the court's power to allow time to pay.
This Bill expects offenders to pay their confiscation orders straightaway, as provided here. The amount of the confiscation order is based on the value of the property available for enforcement when the order is made and not on an assessment of future earnings. Only if an offender produces a particular reason justifying time to pay should any time be allowed.
In no circumstances do we consider that the period should be extended beyond 12 months. Even if there are exceptional circumstances, no defendants should take more than a year to dispose of their assets in order to satisfy a confiscation order.
Far from speeding up enforcement, these amendments would preserve the open-ended payment regime that is one of the current system's weak points. I hope that in the light of my remarks the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his helpful response, which I entirely accept. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Interest on unpaid sums]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Postponement]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 8, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) The court may—

(a) proceed under section 6 before it sentences the defendant for the offence (or any of the offences) concerned, or

(b) postpone proceedings under section 6 for a specified period.

(1A) A period of postponement may be extended."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Effect of postponement]:
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 9, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Statement of information]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 9, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) The content of the statement shall be drawn up in a manner conforming to guidance issued to the Director by the Secretary of State under Schedule 2(5) hereof."
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure quality and to standardise requirements for the contents of the statement of information.
Clauses 17 to 19 deal with the provision of information by the prosecution and by the defendant in confiscation proceedings. Information provided by the prosecution in such proceedings is often extremely sketchy and sometimes almost non-existent in nature. Examples of half a side of A4 paper constituting a statement from the prosecution are not unknown.
The Bill does not address the content of any statement of information provided by the prosecution under Clause 17, simply stating that information must be relevant in deciding whether a defendant has a criminal lifestyle, and whether he has benefited from his general criminal conduct. A code of practice which sets out in a little more detail the actual information that must be provided by the prosecution, or indeed the defendant, would ensure quality and standards.
It is important to note that where the court of its own motion proceeds to confiscation, it may decide that there is no need for a statement to be made by the

73
prosecution or the director. The fact that the court: is proceeding of its own motion rather than the prosecution requesting confiscation should not remove the need for the prosecution to provide a statement of information. We believe that that is illogical.
We welcome Clause 17(4)(b), which requires the prosecution or the director to include information in any statement if an assumption being made would result in a serious risk of injustice. Presumably this is one of the "safeguards" which have been identified by the Government as protecting an individual defendant from what remains a draconian power. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: The other amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 33 to 35, 113 to 115 and 157 to 159—stand in our names. They refer to the information which the prosecutor or director must place before the court in proceedings for a confiscation order.
Under Clause 17, the director or prosecutor must provide a statement of information. Under subsection (3) the statement of information is a,
"statement of matters the prosecutor or the Director believes are relevant",
in deciding whether the defendant has a general criminal lifestyle and has benefited from it.
The reference is not to "the matters" or to "all matters"; it is merely to "matters". The wording is similar in subsection (4) in relation to information relevant to the assumptions that are to be made under Clause 11. Under Clause 17(5),
"If the prosecutor or the Director … does not believe the defendant has a criminal lifestyle",
it alleges a benefit from his particular criminal conduct.
I believe that the prosecutor or the director should be required to include all information in the statement which he believes is relevant. That would include information which, for example, might be inconsistent with the claim of there being a criminal lifestyle.
Amendments Nos. 33 to 35, as I have said, amend Clause 17 to ensure that all the information which the prosecutor or the defendant thinks is relevant must be included in the statement of information. I accept that it may be the intention anyway, but an amendment of this kind would clarify that and clear up a matter that is not clear at present. The later amendments apply to the Scottish and Northern Ireland situation.
Lord Rooker: Amendment No. 32 relates to an operational matter. The Secretary of State is not the person who is best placed to lay down guidance. We see no reason why the Secretary of State should be required to issue guidance to the director, or to anyone else for that matter, as to the contents of a statement of information. It is not a proper function for the Secretary of State. In any case, we see no reason why the contents of a statement should be formalised. There should be some flexibility to allow the statement to contain what is necessary on a case-by-case basis.
74
The amendment relates to existing legislation with which I am personally unfamiliar, but the statement system has been in place for 15 years. I am told that it has been one of the more successful elements in the confiscation regime. We have received no complaints about its operation. After that period of time, therefore, it appears to have been tried and tested.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, we do not believe that the amendments are necessary. The effect of Clause 17 as drafted is that the statement must include all relevant information, simply because it does not contain any exceptions. If the court considers that it needs more information, it can ask for that information under Clause 17(6). I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord find that answer satisfactory.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response which is a little disappointing. I agree that there should be flexibility on a case-by-case basis. Some form of guidance would not necessarily disallow that flexibility; it might even encourage the production of more information relevant to each case so that a proper judgment could be made as to whether a defendant has a criminal lifestyle. I repeat that information provided by the prosecution is often in practice bald, extremely sketchy and barely existent. We believe that guidance notes would make a positive contribution to the Bill.
However, I hear the Minister. I am disappointed but I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 not moved]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Provision of information by defendant]:
Lord Thomas of Gresfordmoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 11, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) Information given pursuant to an order under this section may not be used in evidence against the defendant in criminal proceedings, other than in proceedings under section 6."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is that information given under Clause 19 shall not found a subsequent criminal prosecution. That is not the purpose of the clause, which is part of a quasi administrative procedure in which the civil standard of proof operates.
The court will make an order requiring
"all or a specified part of the information to be given in a specified manner"
and the sanction appears to be not that refusal to obey the order would amount to contempt of court but that
"the court may draw such inference as it believes is appropriate"
if the defendant fails to respond. I should welcome the Minister's assurance that contempt of court would not arise if an order were not obeyed in those circumstances.
Essentially this is the Saunders point and I can do no better than remind your Lordships of two passages from the judgment of the European Court of Human

75
Rights. Paragraph 68 refers to the right not to incriminate oneself, which presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seeks to prove its case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion in defiance of the will of the accused. In that sense, the right is closely linked to the presumption of innocence contained in Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention. Your Lordships will recall that Mr Saunders was required to answer questions that were put to him by Board of Trade inspectors.
Paragraph 74 of the judgment stated that it did not accept the Government's argument that the complexity of corporate fraud, the vital public interest in the investigation of such fraud and the punishment of those responsible could justify the marked departure in that case from the basic principle of a fair procedure. It continued that the general requirements of fairness contained in Article 6, including the right not to incriminate oneself, should apply to criminal proceedings in respect of all types of criminal offence, without distinction, from the most simple to the most complex and that the public interest should not be invoked to justify the use of answers compulsorily obtained in a non-judicial investigation to incriminate the accused during the trial proceedings.
I appreciate that that judgment refers to a non-judicial investigation but that does not amount to a significant distinction from the provisions of the Bill. If that is the view that has been clearly expressed by the European Court of Human Rights, our amendment is one that we hope the Government will accept. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: In the spirit of our debate, I shall consider the matter and return to it on Report.
I shall seek advice on the issue of contempt and will write to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, well in advance of the Report stage.
Some people might argue that there is a respectable case to be made that evidence provided by the defendant in responding to an order under Clause 19 should be capable of being used against him, or indeed against others in separate criminal proceedings. We do not think that these orders are in the same category as orders to provide evidence under compulsion, such as in Saunders.
Clause 18(6) contains a provision that is very similar to that intended by the amendment. It goes further than the amendment in that it prevents the evidence from being used in the criminal trial of any person, not just the defendant. The provision has nothing to do with the Saunders judgment. The thinking underlying Clause 18(6) is that defendants are more likely to be honest and forthcoming about their benefit if the evidence they provide in response to a statement of information cannot be used to incriminate them or their associates.
Our thinking hitherto has been that Clauses 18 and 19 are different in the sense that Clause 18 statements invariably make allegations as to the defendant's
76
criminal conduct, whereas Clause 19 orders are unlikely to do so. It may be that the same issue is capable of arising under both clauses in much the same way.
However, as I said, I shall consider the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and come back to them on Report.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the Minister for his response and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [No order made: reconsideration of case]:
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 38:
Page 12, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [No order made: reconsideration of benefit]:
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 41 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 42:
Page 13. line 43, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Order made: reconsideration of benefit]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 43:
Page 14, line 32, at end insert—
"(aa) there is evidence which was not available to the prosecutor or the Director at the relevant time,"
The noble Lord said: I am not complaining about the noble Baroness, but by not moving the first amendment when many others are grouped with it, she presents considerable difficulty to me. I shall explain the thinking behind the Government's amendments but I shall not discuss the amendments tabled by the Opposition because they were not moved.
The government amendments arise out of a point raised in the other place about Clause 22, as recorded in the Official Report on 27th November. First, under Clauses 20 and 21, the prosecutor and the director of the agency are allowed to apply to the court for a revaluation of the defendant's benefit from crime only if they have new evidence. Currently, there is no requirement of this kind in Clause 22. In theory, they could apply to the court on the basis of evidence that they have held in previous proceedings.
The question raised in the other place was whether the clause should not be brought into line with Clauses 20 and 21 in this respect. We agree that it should. The first purpose of the amendments is to make that clear. The director and the prosecutor will be able to apply under Clause 22 only if their evidence is new.
Secondly, our intention has always been that more than one revaluation should be possible under Clause 22. In looking again at the reconsideration clauses, we

77
doubt whether the wording of the clause currently achieves that intention. It appears to allow for one application only. We have accordingly taken the opportunity to make it quite clear that there may be more than one revaluation under Clause 22. We have also made changes to Clause 23, making it clear that more than one application can be made under Clause 23.
Finally, Clause 23 permits the prosecutor and director to apply to the court for an increase in the confiscation order where more realisable property comes to light. Arguably, the clause does not allow such an application to be made where a confiscation order has been varied under Clause 22. We have taken the opportunity to put it beyond doubt that such applications are permissible.
These government amendments are very much fine-tuning amendments in one of the more technical areas of the Bill. However, they will help to ensure that it operates exactly as we would wish. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 44 and 45:
Page 14, line 35, leave out from first "the" to end of line and insert "relevant amount"
Page 14, line 38, leave out "on which his belief is based"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 47 and 48:
Page 15, line 18, leave out from first "the" to "the" in line 19 and insert "relevant amount"
Page 15, line 45, at end insert—
"(11A) The relevant time is—

(a) when the court calculated the defendant's benefit for the purposes of the confiscation order, if this section has not applied previously;

(b) when the court last calculated the defendant's benefit in pursuance of this section, if this section has applied previously.

(11B) The relevant amount is—

(a) the amount found as the defendant's benefit for the purposes of the confiscation order, if this section has not applied previously;

(b) the amount last found as the defendant's benefit in pursuance of this section, if this section has applied previously."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Order made: reconsideration of available amount]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 49 to 51:
Page 16, line 17, leave out from third "the" to fourth "the" in line 18 and insert "relevant amount"
Page 16, line 22, leave out "(when the confiscation order was made)"
Page 16, line 37, at end insert—
"(7A) The relevant amount is—

(a) the amount found as the available amount for the purposes of the confiscation order, if this section has not applied previously;

78

(b) the amount last found as the available amount in pursuance of this section, if this section has applied previously.

(7B) The amount found as the defendant's benefit from the conduct concerned is—

(a) the amount so found when the confiscation order was made, or

(b) if one or more new calculations of the defendant's benefit have been made under section 22 the amount found on the occasion of the last such calculation."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Small amount outstanding: discharge of order]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 52:
Page 18, line 3, leave out "£50" and insert "£500"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with a small point; namely, to allow for de minimis considerations in discharge of orders. The purpose of the power to discharge is that, where there are no assets left with which to discharge the order, £50 is such a low sum that it is almost meaningless. Any legal or court costs in considering the application would far outweigh that sum. Where there is no ability to pay but the circumstances do not fall under the Clause 24 inadequacy provisions, we believe that the court should be able to exercise sensible discretion—in which case we suggest that £500 is a more meaningful sum. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: It may be useful to the Committee if I explained a little more of the background to Clause 26 at this point.
Representations have been made to us by justices' chief executives that the current legislation contains no provision whereby a confiscation order can be written off where only a small amount is remaining and cannot be satisfied. Consequently, such sums remain on the books of the justices' chief executives indefinitely and cannot be removed from court records, This clause responds to those concerns and allows the justices' chief executives to apply to the Crown Court to write off a confiscation order where all that remains is £50, or below.
We have considered carefully at what level to set the threshold. We did not want to pitch the level too high in order not to create the impression that defendants need not pay their orders because they know that they will be written off. As this is a new power, we believe that the level is modest and about right. If it turns out to be too low, it will be open to the Secretary of State to make an order to raise the threshold by virtue of subsection (3). In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied and feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response, for which I am grateful. I am also grateful to him for offering further background on the drafting and meaning of Clause 26. I entirely understand what the noble Lord said with regard to not wishing

79
defendants to believe that the sum would just be written off. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Industrial and Provident Societies Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2002
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsrose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 11th March, be annulled (S.I. 2002/641).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this statutory instrument will increase the colour television licence this year from £109 to £112. I have tabled the Motion in order to ask the Government to justify that increase, and to give a progress report on the way in which the licence-fee payers' money—and, of course, taxpayers' money—is being spent on the development of digital programming. Tax increases usually have to be debated in Parliament, but the licence fee can be increased by statutory instrument that is subject to the negative procedure; in order words, it slips silently into operation unless someone tables a Motion to debate it.
Approximately 1.2 million people do not buy a television licence, although they own a television set and are legally required to pay the fee. About 150,000 cases a year are taken to magistrates' courts in order to prosecute those non-payers. I was, therefore, intrigued to read in The Times of 18th March that the chairman of the BBC, Gavyn Davies, went out with the licence detector vans last month to ask some of those people why they were unwilling to pay the £109. He said that he was staggered by the number of people who evaded paying, and commented:
"There were people who obviously found it difficult to pay £109".
I can assure Mr Davies that they will find it even more difficult to pay £112. The chairman went on to say:
"It was those people who reinforced in my mind the view that we have to serve everybody".
80
Of course, he is absolutely right on that point—but that is the whole point of being a publicly-funded broadcaster and not having to chase ratings for commercial success.
I sat as a magistrate for some 13 years before coming to your Lordships' House. During that time I heard hundreds, if not thousands, of cases relating to people who had not paid their licence fee. To my recollection, not one of those people ever told the court that they did not pay up because the BBC did not serve their needs, but was being hijacked by the middle classes who, according to Mr Davies recently, have a disproportionate amount of programming allotted to them. Their main problem was simply that the licence fee was one more bill among the many that they could not or would not pay. The fact is that the licence fee is now higher than expected when a settlement was reached after the Broadcasting Act 1996 which introduced the plans to launch digital television. We recognised then that there would be costs associated with developing digital programming and the licence fee was adjusted according to the best estimates available at the time.
Then, in 2000, this Government substantially increased the funding for the BBC in order to underwrite its plans to go digital. At that stage, noble Lords may remember that the BBC asked for an extra £700 million a year. The Government said that the BBC had not told them why it needed quite that much money, so they said that it could have just an extra £200 million per year, still, as far as one can tell, without requiring full justification from the BBC. As Claire Ward, the Minister's honourable friend in another place, pointed out on 21st February of that year,
"when the BBC appeared before the Select Committee, it was unable to give a convincing explanation of why it wanted the extra funding and of what it would do with it".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/00: col. 1249.]
I have always made it clear that that rise may indeed have been justified. The problem is quite simply that we were never given the evidence to prove that it was. The BBC received an extra £200 million a year of our money and the licence fee payer had to face a larger than expected increase in the annual tax on owning a TV set. The fee rose by double the rate of inflation between 2000 and 2001. The Government ignored the evidence produced by the Institute of Fiscal Studies that, under such arrangements, 71 out of every 100 of the poorest households would be worse off.
Over the past year, the BBC has been launching its new digital TV channels. It is also busy developing five new national radio services which will be available through all digital formats. So far the only glitch has been that the plans for BBC3, which were submitted to the Government in February 2001, were rejected. In December last year the BBC resubmitted a new, revamped proposal. We are still waiting for the Government to make up their mind about it.
It really is coming to the stage where it is intolerable for the Government to dither so long over this decision. What the Government need to do is their business; that is, reach a decision, so that the BBC can

81
do what is its business; that is, either get on and develop BBC3 or, if the Government again say no, at least adjust its business plans accordingly.
In the meantime, last month Gavyn Davies told the Westminster Media Forum, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who is in his place, that the BBC still has at least £80 million in the bank which should have been spent on BBC3. Have the Government taken that into account in justifying this year's increase in the licence fee?
It is rather ironic that the BBC is now chaired by the very same person who in 1999 said in his report on the future funding of the BBC that it was unfair to charge analogue households for the development of digital services which they could not receive. That is exactly what is happening now. Can the Minister confirm that over 64 per cent of households still do not have access to digital programmes but are being asked to pay for their development? What measures will the Government take to provide information to the consumer to help him or her make informed decisions about the take-up of digital television so that we can progress more quickly towards analogue switch-off? Only at that stage will all licence fee payers receive equal value for their annual payment.
While we are on the subject of analogue switch-off, it would be remiss of me not to refer to the fact that it was announced on the news tonight that ITV Digital will be sold off as a going concern after negotiations with the Football League appear, sadly, to have collapsed. I appreciate that that announcement casts a long shadow over the future of broadcasting in the digital age.
The Minister will be aware that it has been reported in the press that the Government expect the BBC to come to the rescue of ITV Digital customers in some form or other and then to continue the development of digital terrestrial television as an alternative platform to those of satellite and cable. If that were to happen, what would the Government expect to be the impact on the licence fee? Would we end up being licence fee payers also paying subscriptions to satellite and cable providers, in effect subsidising the users of digital terrestrial programming? This is a complex issue and one that. after today's announcement, must be addressed as a matter of prime importance.
I appreciate that not all households are required to pay their licence fee, although they must apply for and hold a licence. There are households in which one member is over the age of 75 and their licence fee is paid by the general taxpayer. Can the Government give an estimate of how much the taxpayer will provide for that in the period 2002–03, the year covered by the regulations?
I have approached this debate from my viewpoint as a friend of the general taxpayer, as a friend of the licence fee payer—of which I am one—and certainly as a candid friend, as always, of the BBC. The cost of digital broadcasting is going to be high; today we are even more acutely aware of that. It should be a price worth paying if the Government get it right, but we must be sure that the price is no higher than necessary and that the value we receive is right for the price.
82
It is right that we should always recognise the BBC's achievements and its important role in setting the benchmark of quality in both national and international broadcasting. I believe that the BBC has made and must continue to make a major contribution to the cultural life of our nation. Personally. I think that our broadcasting environment would be damaged beyond belief if the BBC was not a star player in it. However, we have to recognise that the world of broadcasting is changing rapidly. The explosion of choice raises fundamental questions about the current and future role of the BBC. No doubt we shall have a valuable debate in full on that in the forthcoming communications Bill. I relish taking part in those discussions.
Tonight, however, we have an opportunity to start the ball rolling with a focused debate on the licence fee itself. I beg to move this humble Address and hope that it receives the support of noble Lords.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, laid before the House on 11 th March, be annulled (S.I. 2002/641).—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)
Lord Hussey of North Bradley: My Lords. I must first declare an interest as I was chairman of the BBC from 1986 to 1996 and was therefore involved in many discussions about the licence fee. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has proposed that the regulations laid before the House on 11th March be annulled. It is the system under which the licence fee is arranged that I should like to raise with noble Lords rather than the details on the recent adjustment.
The licence fee is an integral part of the BBC's charter, renewed roughly every 15 years, and comprises a high percentage of its revenue. When I joined the BBC in 1986, there was a fierce debate about its level. Into that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, the vice-chairman and, as noble Lords know, a man of great wisdom, and I were pitched. The executives sought a very much larger increase than we believed could be justified. In those days there was commercial television and Channel 4, but no satellite, cable or digital services.
The debate followed a report produced by Professor Peacock, recommending that the licence fee should be linked to the retail prices index. That struck the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and myself as a fair solution, acceptable to all those who had to pay it. We also believed, unlike the executives, that the BBC was not short of money. In fact, we thought that it was sloshing through the corridors of Broadcasting House in a great, unending stream.
We argued with the executives that the R PI would be a reasonable and fair settlement, acceptable to the Government and to the public, who had to pay it, but in particular to the Government, whose Prime Minister had already described the licence fee, not inaccurately but certainly not kindly, as a compulsory levy enforced by criminal sanctions.

83
There are only three ways of financing the BBC: by direct grant from government, by advertising or by an agreed formula. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and I settled for the Peacock formula, following the RPI, believing that the BBC already had ample funds for its purposes. Underlying that argument was the power of the BBC, emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who had added:
"But with that power comes an equal responsibility for impartiality, honesty and accuracy".
The compulsory levy argument illustrates the corollary that the BBC must show that the millions it receives are rewarded by a clear demonstration of those qualities emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan.
Many years earlier, Lord Reith had laid down the BBC objective:
"To carry into the greatest numbers of homes everything that is best in every department of human knowledge, endeavour and achievement".
And, indeed, Michael Grade has always regarded the BBC as the arbiter of standards.
The licence fee settlement is normally—I do not know about this occasion—the culmination of endless discussions at the BBC, by the BBC with various interested parties, not least political. Herein lies the clash. If the BBC exercises properly its remit it is inevitable that governments or oppositions will quarrel about the accuracy or justice of BBC programmes. Indeed, I would go further. Although I am no politician I have a keen interest in current affairs, and if there were no disputes between the politicians and the BBC, the BBC would probably not be carrying out its responsibilities so clearly clarified by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and Lord Reith.
The independence of the BBC is rooted in the licence fee. Universally paid by everyone under 75, and enforced by the Government, the funding of the BBC is a touchstone of the confidence Parliament has in exercising the power entrusted to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, summed up the current position when he said that democracy can exist only if there is a constant stream of information from politicians, governments, the press, television and radio. But he added that the new technology has radically altered the scene so that the media now not only records the news but can make the news, decide what is the news, or, even more dangerously, decide what is not the news.
There must always be a place for a powerful media voice that is not in the pocket of an individual proprietor nor interest group nor advertiser; a voice which does not give paramount weight to the choice of programmes for what will earn the most money from subscription, advertising or circulation—none of which is a recipe for high standards—but offers instead schedules to tempt audiences and uplift their interest and understanding. This is a demanding and honourable objective and the funds necessary to achieve it are delivered by the Government, usually
84
after a whole series of meetings, luncheons and discreet explanations, all arguing about what is a fair and proper level for the settlement.
We are reaching a stage when the "compulsory levy" might possibly be looked at in a different way. This is a very difficult and confused area. If the National Audit Office, for example, was able to access the process and assumptions, I wonder whether Parliament would feel more comfortable about the result and, in consequence, have done something to lance this regular boil which springs up every time the licence fee is renewed. If it were possible for the National Audit Office to look at this issue, look at the process and look at the results, I believe we would solve a problem which is constantly coming back. That would be very much in the interests of licence payers.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, the licence fee is a stinking, lousy, rotten, unfair, unjust poll tax. Someone on the national minimum wage has to complete a full week's work to earn enough to pay it. I therefore very much regret to this day that the Government turned down the proposal made by the Davies panel in regard to the BBC licence fee that the extra money needed by the BBC should come from a digital licence fee, which would fall more fairly on less poor people rather than on licence payers. That is water under the bridge, but I shall require the strongest possible arguments before I am convinced that the increase proposed by my noble friend is justified.
I require the strongest possible arguments and I believe that they exist. It is fashionable to argue that the advent of digital TV and the proliferation of channels and programmes means that public service broadcasting no longer has a role to play. It may be fashionable to argue it, but the reverse is the case. For instance, the more of those kind of channels that we have, the more we require public service broadcasting. If you divide the broadcasting cake among 500 channels, the amount per hour spent on programmes plummets. Without the BBC and the public service broadcasters to set standards that would mean cheap programming to the great disadvantage of the viewing public.
If we did not have public service broadcasters there would also be a great worry in regard to monopoly. That has come a step nearer with the near platform monopoly that Rupert Murdoch will enjoy as of tonight unless a buyer is found for ITV Digital.
There are public service broadcasters other than the BBC. It is a great mistake to think of the BBC as being the only public service broadcaster. There is Channel 4 and there are onerous public service obligations on Channel 5 and on ITV. But, at the moment, the commercial public service broadcasters are in a weak position because of the slump in advertising. According to the ITC report last week, it was some 7 per cent down in the year to 11th September, but that underestimates the true situation because it has gone on falling since then.

85
When advertising falls off a cliff like that there is a delay before the programming falls with it because budgets cannot be cut in an instant. I am afraid that we have not yet seen the full effect on programmes of that cut in the budgets of commercial public service broadcasters. In such a situation we have to rely very heavily on the BBC to provide the quality of public service broadcasting that will complete the crucial broadcasting ecology and keep up the standards of programming.
I do not often disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, but I do disagree that the broad case for the increase in the licence fee of 1.5 per cent above inflation when it was accepted by the Government two years ago was not investigated. The BBC put its proposals to Davies. As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane knows, the panel crawled over them for hour after hour, day after day, meeting after meeting and trimmed them back to what it felt was fair. That was not the end of the process. 'The Government then called in their own independent accountants to have a crawl of their own.
It is perfectly true that Gerald Kaufman, the chair of the Select Committee in another place, did not think that the case had been made. He never would. He is against the BBC. He wants it privatised. So he would never think I hat it had made the case for more money. But if ever a case was made, it was made for that increase.
I question whether it is enough. It is not an awful lot— it is only 1.5 per cent above inflation—and as in general broadcasting costs rise not in line with inflation but in line with earnings, there is not a great pot of money being handed to the BBC.
On reflection, however, I think it is enough for the following reasons. First, there have been enormous savings under the John. Birt regime at the BBC of £700 million a year—which is often forgotten in the criticisms made of John Birt—which has made possible its present achievements. Secondly, bureaucracy can be cut further. Last year the bureaucratic costs of the BBC went down from 24 per cent of its budget to 19 per cent. That is good progress, but I do not believe that even the BBC's friends would suggest that there is no more fat to cut. Anyway, if you gave them more money they would want to put more into BBC 3, which is the greatest waste of the licence fee payers' money ever invented by man or beast. I strongly hope that my noble friend will persuade the Secretary of State finally to turn it down.
In all these matters of funding there is a balance to be struck between too much and too little. This is an important moment at which to have a strong BBC and I think that the Government have got the balance just about right in the order.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. To borrow a phrase much used by the Government, I wonder whether increased funding ought not to be linked more strongly to reform. Like others, I believe that there is a good case for public service broadcasting in the UK. I also
86
think that there is a good case for the BBC a s an institution. Like others, I am a great fan of the BBC. However, in the current environment it is a huge fallacy to believe that public service broadcasting and the BBC are necessarily synonymous. Given the breadth of competitive broadcasting available, one can no longer sustain the argument that anything broadcast by the BBC is necessarily public service broadcasting just because the BBC broadcasts it. That is clear when we consider some of the output procured on the open market, which is very similar to that procured from the same sources by other channels. How can one be public service broadcasting and the other not?
As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed out, it is also a fallacy to believe that the BBC is the only place where public service broadcasting can take place. That is clearly not the case any more, although the BBC may well be the best place for certain public service broadcasting in particular areas, such as the World Service.
It is also a fallacy to believe that if the Government wish to fund digital broadcasting in the UK, the 1313C, through the licence fee, is the best or only place to fund that. There may be a case for some provision that is not part of a general licence fee settlement.
If public service broadcasting is considered as a separate case for funding, the clear logic in the current environment is that, while the BBC might be funded for its public service roles, it should have to move to seeking direct or commercial funding for the other output that does not form part of the public service remit. I do not accept the argument that exploiting the BBC brand to seek commercial funding would necessarily lower standards. If one had the BBC brand as a commercial asset, the first thing one would do is protect the quality and premium rating of that brand and try to exploit it rather than take it downmarket. There is no necessary conflict between the BBC seeking commercial or direct funding from viewers and the desire that we all have to maintain quality standards at the BBC.
The BBC's settlement under the last charter renewal should be seen as funding for a transition period. The BBC should have a plan and an expectation that over the course of that settlement it will move to reflect the reality of the current competitive marketplace, with more of its output being funded commercially and only that part that is truly public service broadcasting being funded through public sources. I would certainly support and accept the funding of a licence fee that was set against such a transition plan.
The problem that I have with this settlement and the annual settlement that we have before us is that they are delinked from any plan of that nature. I do not believe that they will take the BBC any closer at the end of the current charter period to being the kind of organisation that needs to be in place for the future. We should be cautious about simply ratifying a year-on-year increase in the licence fee. The Government

87
should seek from the BBC a plan that more properly reflects the transition that will be needed for the future of the BBC.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is useful to have this debate tonight. The more we discuss the BBC the better it will be for the BBC. The proposed increase is very modest, even if it is a little above the inflation rate. The television licence is excellent value for money, bearing in mind the services provided. We get two national terrestrial channels with 24-hour coverage, plus the regional television channels and the digital channels, which are being further developed. The licence fee also covers free national and local radio and the development of new digital radio stations. That is not bad. All that for just over £2 a week is a remarkable achievement and a bargain at any reckoning.
Compare that with buying a daily newspaper for a week. The Telegraph, if you take it at the weekend as well, will cost £4.35 and the Mail will cost £3.50. That is just for a newspaper for a week. We get all those services from the BBC for just over £2 a week, which is probably about the cost of hiring a video film for a weekend. Let there be no doubt that it is good value for money. I therefore remain a supporter of a public broadcasting arm.
However, over the next few years there is bound to be change in management and programming, not to mention the changeover to digital transmission, which the noble Baroness raised in her opening remarks. This is not the time to go into the long-term future, but it is legitimate to reiterate some concerns about the BBC. A public service broadcaster should strive for excellence and shun dumbing down. The great strength of the BBC over its lifetime has been the raising of standards of awareness, taste, education and fairness. Those qualities have gained for the BBC the support and respect of people in Britain and throughout the world. It is unfortunate that the new leadership of the corporation have given the impression that the BBC's role of providing broadcasting excellence is to be subordinated to competing in the ratings chart and that the service is to be allowed to descend into populism as a result. That attitude is a betrayal of all those who have fought over the years to retain the BBC's reputation as the best.
There are other complaints too. There is resentment over certain people who work for the BBC who regard the corporation as their personal fiefdom. Because they have been around for so long, they arrogantly suppose that they are indispensable. It is time the BBC had a look at its long-term employees.
Access to programmes is too narrow and producers and editors are too prone to promoting the Government's agenda and pandering too much to the politically correct line on the issues of the day. There is also an ongoing complaint from members of the Eurorealist organisations that they do not get a fair hearing and that the BBC is not willing to have a deep and searching investigation into the European Union.
88
Above all, they are reluctant even to discuss the possibility and the consequences of withdrawal from the European Union.
That failure to discuss issues that are uppermost in the electorate's mind brings about the sort of upheavals that occurred in France yesterday. It is not only politicians who need to learn lessons from those events in France. The media need to learn lessons as well. The BBC has a great responsibility in that area and I hope that it will discharge it.
8 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for this opportunity to look briefly at the future, and future financing, of the BBC against the background of the forthcoming establishment of Ofcom. The central issue of the licence fee will undoubtedly continue to be debated, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that it is not really a great sum. It may be great for certain people, but it is relatively mild for most people's budgets.
I suspect that another matter underlying this debate is the extent to which the BBC should or should not be totally subsumed within the regulatory authority of Ofcom once it arrives. I start from a premise that many others have already mentioned—that it is still accepted in almost any conversation on public broadcasting in any public bar or around any dinner table that our broadcasting system remains one of the best and most independent in the world. I think that the pre-eminent reason for that is the unique role played by the BBC in establishing and maintaining the concept of public service broadcasting. One has only to look to the United States to see the alternative. There, public service broadcasting remains in both substance and style an under-resourced ghetto.
My central point is very simple. If we seek, for the sake of a completely comprehensive system, to harmonise the way in which we finance, run and regulate and at the same time absorb a standard-setting, world-respected institution which has served us so well for so long, we put at risk the future quality of British broadcasting. I accept that Ofcom will have a considerable role to play in regulating many aspects of the BBC, but that does not apply to all aspects. It is important for the corporation to retain real independence, and to continue its investment in quality digital programmes. It is the quality of digital programmes that will help persuade the audience to switch over to digital and meet the Government's hoped for target date.
I admit to being somewhat wary of "giantism"—the current passion, which has existed for some time, for all-embracing, comprehensive organisations. I do not want the BBC's creativity to be stifled by the giantism of Ofcom. My central message is that we must take care not to press the logic too far, whether it is the logic of how we fund the BBC or the logic of including all its activities within Ofcom. But there is an important corollary to that conclusion. There is still much to be done in improving the governance of the BBC.

89
That will be even more important under the "lighter regulatory" regime proposed for all broadcasters. So there is absolutely no room for complacency at Broadcasting House.
The new BBC chairman, to his credit, is plainly aware of that. His latest plans, for example, show a more hands-on role for governors in setting targets and monitoring the public interest in how the licence fee is spent. Again, however, I for one shall need to be more convinced—in the likely absence of something like the Broadcasting Standards Commission—about the independence of the corporation system in handling citizen complaints, whether about unfairness or violence. The BBC has pledged to involve outside, independent auditors when issues of potentially unfair competition arise. Would it not be splendid if an equally expert panel, which was also completely independent of the BBC, could be established to deal with unresolved complaints about unfairness or violence? That might also provide Ofcom with a model of the type of independence and transparency which I believe that it too will need if it is fully to comply with the European human rights legislation.
There is a final example. Despite the hugely competitive world of modern broadcasting, far less attention must be paid to ratings and far more to the range, diversity and, above all, quality of what is shown on BBC terrestrial channels. The ITC's latest annual report has rightly expressed serious and specific concern about "dumbing down". Although ITV bore the main brunt of the commission's justified criticism, the BBC was also shown to have cut both current affairs and arts programmes by up to 50 per cent.
I return to my main point. We must take care not to undermine the organisation which is the principal buttress of British broadcasting's generally high standards and reputation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we need the BBC to continue as a benchmark. Although its future plans look slightly more encouraging, the BBC needs to know now more than ever that we expect results.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Anelay in her prayer.
I start by reminding noble Lords of a debate in your Lordships' House on 11 th March 2002, at cols. 653 to 676 of the Official Report, when I accused the chairman and governors of the BBC of failing in their duty to produce political programmes which are impartial, wide ranging and fair and which reflect significant strands of British public thought. I imagine that it is common ground that those duties and the public service remit generally form an important justification for the licence fee and indeed for the BBC itself. The example that I gave your Lordships was of the BBC's biased treatment in favour of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union, into which the noble Lords, Lord Harris of High Cross and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and I–through the medium of our Global Britain research unit—had commissioned no fewer than six substantial independent surveys.
90
I shall not repeat any of that debate now except to recall that the Minister did not accept our case or our principal complaint that those analyses had been given to the BBC's management, who naturally dismissed them, and not to the governors, whose duty it was to consider them. However, the Minister was good enough to reveal that the BBC was addressing what she called the "perception" that the BBC's governors were too close to the BBC's management to regulate it properly.
This initiative was clarified the next day, 12th March, when the BBC's chairman revealed to a major broadcasting conference that he was setting up a new governance and accountability department to provide independent advice to the governors in fulfilling their public service priorities. Of course, by setting up such a new department and by rearranging the responsibilities and reporting lines of the existing Programme Complaints Unit and the existing Governors' Programme Complaints Unit, the chairman was in effect admitting that the governors had not been able to discharge their duties satisfactorily beforehand. That is the point that I had been trying to make; otherwise, why the change?
A few days later, an internal memorandum from the chairman fell into my hands, entitled a "Summary of changes to BBC governance arrangements". which sets out the chairman's proposed changes in greater detail. I do not know if the Minister has seen A., but I shall be happy to give her a copy after the debate and to put a copy in the Library of the House in case any other noble Lord is interested to read it. Nor do I know whether the BBC governors and management have agreed it. However, even if they have, it contains one fatal flaw which means that the changes it proposes, although welcome, will not be radical enough to make the governors sufficiently independent of management to allow them to fulfil their public service remit, at least in the areas of which I and others complain, and thus to justify even the present licence fee let alone the proposed increase.
The problem is that those employed in the new department and in the existing complaint units will merely be existing staff who continue to owe their prospects to the BBC's management. They are therefore most unlikely to be adequately critical of that management although the governors and the public service remit require them to be so. No man can serve two masters, and certainly not when one of there controls his salary, career and pension.
With that problem in mind, I had the temerity to write to the chairman of the BBC and to the Secretary of State on 23rd March with the suggestion that those who work in the new department should be employed by a separate trust funded by the licence fee but with impeccable trustees who would be entirely independent of management, which the governors are not. Such an arrangement would cost little because the salaries of those who are to work in the new department are already paid by the BBC. In the same letters I also suggested that the latest of our commissioned reports into the BBC's coverage of the "European issue" should not be passed yet again by

91
the chairman to the BBC's management for judgment, but to an independent arbiter. I have yet to hear from either the chairman or the Secretary of State as to what they think about those two suggestions and would be grateful to hear any views the Minister might have.
Finally, perhaps I may say a brief word about "dumbing down". I had the misfortune last week to put my back out and so decided to spend a good deal of time watching television on many of the channels which are now available and which I do not usually watch. I found it a deeply depressing experience as so much of the output seems to rely on sex and violence and so little on the nobler aspects of our existence. No doubt many of the new channels which are to become available will continue that regrettable and probably destructive trend. As far as I can see, there was as much of that stuff on the BBC as on any other channel.
If there is to be a BBC at all, and if there is to be a licence fee at all, I really cannot see why the BBC has to compete with that rubbish in the name of "ratings" or any other excuse. Surely the main point of the BBC's licence fee is precisely so that it does not have to peddle such ghastliness, so that it is free to educate and to lift our eyes and minds to higher things.
So, for once I agree with Mr Greg Dyke, the BBC's Director-General, if your Lordships will forgive me for repeating some of his language, that it is time for the BBC to "cut the crap". If it did that, it would not need anything like its present budget of some £2,500 million and would avoid becoming an expensive irrelevance. If it did that, it would also return to its former and rightful place in the affections of the British people.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, apart from expressing gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for raising the subject, and wishing that we had more time to debate it, as we shall in the not too distant future, I have three brief points to make. First, I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, from his vast experience at the BBC. Of the sources of finance available, the licence fee is by far the most preferable for the BBC. A grant by the Government would increase dependence on government and increase the risk of political interference. Advertising would, frankly, reduce the available income to both the BBC and ITV to a point at which neither could do the job properly. I believe that the licence fee is the best solution.
My next point is that the present level being proposed is about right. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I was a member of the committee which considered that, so I would say that, wouldn't I? I disagree with my noble friend, as I did at the time, because the alternative was a separate digital licence fee which I felt would have inhibited the growth of digital television. I thought that it was more important to expand the number of people able to take up digital television and so have a licence fee which would be a little higher than it was. However, let us get that into
92
perspective. It is a quarter of what we pay Sky. Let us analyse also the contents. People talk about 200 or 300 channels as though they were all BBC1s, BBC2s or, indeed, ITVs. At least half of those are film channels, which is convenience video broadcasting. Some of the best channels are also re-runs. UK Gold is the BBC as we wish it still was. There is not a great deal of programme origination.
The proposed licence fee is about right. I do not think that it is coming bereft of the need for reform. Some of the reforms were put forward by the Davies committee and have already been adopted. Still others are in train. When the draft Bill on communications is before us I shall continue to argue that it will be much better for the BBC and for broadcasting as a whole if, like every other public service broadcaster, the BBC were regulated by Ofcom. But that issue is for another day.
The issue I want to single out tonight is that of the digital terrestrial platform. The noble Baroness was tragically accurate in her timing for this debate, with the announcement to which she alluded about ITV Digital. I have no sympathy for football clubs that pay their players too much money, or for ITV companies that pay too much money for sporting rights. From what I have heard, I believe that the Government are entirely right to say, "That is your problem. Do not expect us to intervene". However, I am concerned about the future of the digital terrestrial platform. It is important to remember that until about 10 years ago, the BBC and the IBA, the Independent Broadcasting Authority, owned the transmitters because we felt that they were too important to be left in the hands of private individuals, even television companies. Through them co-operating with each other we achieved 99.4 per cent coverage of the UK, including parts of the country which I come from which have beautiful scenery but are an engineering nightmare from the point of view of digital transmission.
Regrettably, in the early days of digital terrestrial, the BBC was not as co-operative as it might have been in helping to build the digital terrestrial network. It is important to recognise that the BBC was allowed to keep the proceeds of the sale by privatisation of its transmission network. It is entirely appropriate, particularly in the current, dare one say, crisis, that the BBC invests that money not in programming but in the platform. It is imperative that we have a digital terrestrial platform in this country. Unless we are careful, we may not.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I realise that by putting so many questions to the Minister, we may well run out of time for the answers and so shall lose some of the sparkling eloquence planned for tonight.
Needless to say, we on these Benches support the broad thrust of the settlement of which the regulations are a part. We thought it was a good idea during a period of change to give the BBC guaranteed adequate funding to carry out its remit both in terms of present channels and of making a proper commitment to the development of digital in this country. Therefore, we think it right that the regulations should pass. We

93
believe that the BBC should be encouraged to continue to explore all levels of technical development, which it is. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked what we are getting for our money. I believe that we are already seeing that in programme development, and that is sensible.
I want to make two brief points. The crisis in ITV Digital and some of the developments we are seeing in France, Germany, Italy and indeed in this country should make us pause before we think that the wonderful entrepreneurs always get it right. They can make catstrophically wrong decisions. We should not, therefore, put so precious an asset as our public broadcasting, system into pawn just at their say-so. Also, we should be well aware that many of our media owners have massive vested interests in the great gamble that is going on. Therefore, we should be cautious about how cross-media ownership is used. I refer only to the hysterical attacks by the Daily Mail on the BBC as a forewarning over the next few months that we may see many more like that. We should pause to think whether the publishers of certain newspapers also have massive broadcasting interests, which would benefit much by the weakening of the BBC. Apart from that, I look forward to the debates to come.
I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, a suspicion that we should not buy a pig in a poke in putting the BBC fully in the control of a totally untried OFCOM. I welcome the healthy idea of a joint Select Committee to examine many of these issues. I welcome also the fact that the BBC is, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, bringing efficiency into its own management. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, that it is very important that we retain that digital platform, perhaps as a platform for free-to-air services and to spearhead the take up of the free-to-air services.
Today's debate has indicated that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will keep all his old prejudices and that there will be a wide variety of views in this House about the future of broadcasting. I hope that I have given the Minister the 10 minutes that are her due.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords. I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for cutting short his no doubt incredibly eloquent speech, but I am sure that we shall hear him on many other occasions on the subject. I am also grateful for what he and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said about the Government's intended arrangements with respect to the BBC and Ofcom. I share their views. I think that that is the right approach.
In the time available I shall not be able to respond to all the issues raised. I have listened carefully to all that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and other noble Lords said.
The regulations which have prompted the debate are increased television licence fees in line with the funding formula for the years 2001 to 2006–07 which were announced by the Government in February 2000.
94
They also include consequential amendments in relation to the various instalment schemes for payment of the licence fee.
The funding formula was based on the recommendations of the independent review panel on the future funding of the BBC in its report of July 1999. It provides for television licence fee increases of 1.5 per cent above the rate of inflation as measured by the RPI. As the debate has made clear, many people have strong views about the BBC, both because it is our principal public service broadcaster and also because of the way it is funded.
The licence fee understandably raises high expectations among viewers and listeners. Those expectations relate to both the range and quality o r the services that the BBC provides, as well as how it manages its resources. But perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that I profoundly agree with what my noble friend. Lord Lipsey said. A huge debate took place at the time that the decision was made to increase the licence fee over this period by above the rate of inflation. The BBC's case for extra expenditure was gone into in great detail. As my noble friend said, "It was crawled all over".
I very much accept what the noble Lord. Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, that on the whole we get fairly good value for money in terms of what we have to pay for the licence fee. I accept the view expressed that this increase is not so enormous that most people cannot afford to pay it.
I turn to one or two specific questions. The noble Baroness said that it was intolerable that the Government should be taking so long to decide about BBC3. Any new BBC service should complement and challenge the market but it should not undermine it. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is concerned about approving a bid to competitors, especially because many commercial companies, as stated in this debate, are feeling the squeeze from the biggest fall in advertising revenue for a decade.
The BBC and the ITC have different views regarding the market impact of BBC3. They are now working together to try to reconcile the position before the Secretary of State reaches her decision. I am afraid that I am not going to be able to tell my noble friend Lord Lipsey what the outcome will be.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey also commented on reducing overheads in the BBC. It is committed to putting more money into programme making. In 1999 the BBC spent 24 per cent of its income on overheads. It has set a target of reducing that to 15 per cent—a very substantial reduction—by 2004.
The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, thought that the BBC should receive licence fee funding only for public service broadcasting and not where it competes or duplicates the commercial broadcasters. The Government remain committed to a BBC which provides a broad range of programmes catering for all viewers and listeners, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Hussey. The corporation's current broad remit cannot easily be divided without undermining its whole role. Public support for licence fee funding

95
would be unlikely to survive on a much more narrow remit limited to what the commercial sector will not provide.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about providing more information to consumers about digital television. The BBC is making substantial contributions to the provision of information in that area. Indeed, the commitment made by the Government to the BBC's new digital services last year was that it should take steps to promote more understanding of what digital services can provide.
The noble Baroness also asked about the estimated cost to the taxpayer next year of providing free licences to those over 75. The provisional out-turn for 2001–02 was £376 million, including administrative costs. I shall try to write at some later date with the forecast figure for 2002—03.
The noble Lord, Lord Hussey, made an eloquent speech in defence of the licence fee. He was supported by my noble friends Lord Gordon of Strathblane and Lord Lipsey. The noble Lord said that for all its weaknesses and limitations it was the best way for the BBC and its public service commitments to be funded. It protects the BBC's independence. It is a fundamental principle of our approach to broadcasting in this country that the Government do not intervene in detailed issues of programming content or scheduling. The system of funding should also support that.
I am about to run out of time. I want to make a couple more comments to my noble friends Lord Gordon and Lord Lipsey who took different positions on the issue of whether there should be a separate fee for digital services. The Government's position is that a digital licence supplement might well act as a disincentive to the take up of digital services and would certainly add to the cost of administering the licence systems. For that reason we have rejected it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hussey, made some comments about the role of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, but the NAO in particular. Perhaps I can drop him a line on that matter and explain the Government's position. We did not accept the review panel's recommendation that the NAO should be given inspection rights to carry out periodic financial audits. But I shall follow that up in a letter.
The noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, repeated their criticism about the quality of programming on the BBC. I do not accept their wide-ranging criticism—in particular, their allegations about its Europhile or other bias.
I should also like to respond to what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said about increased funding for some areas of the BBC that contribute to quality. To take arts and music programming, for example, during the next financial year there will be a substantial increase in funding for those areas, which I am sure that all noble Lords will welcome.
96
Again, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about his points on governance. The letter that he sent to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will of course be answered as soon as possible.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the House that the television licence fee increases introduced by the regulations are justified to ensure that the BBC can continue to provide its full range of services and maintain their quality. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, although there is no time limit on this debate, I hope that I managed to keep the blood pressure of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, at a reasonable level before the debate began by saying that I would not take the usual opportunity to comment on the fascinating and penetrating comments made by noble Lords during the debate. However, as a courtesy, I thank them for their contribution to what has been an important opening salvo in our debates on the matter. I simply join the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in saying that the BBC must know by now that we expect results. I beg to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
8.32 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 28 [Defendant convicted or committed]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 53:
Page 18, line 33, leave out "appropriate" and insert "just"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 53, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 54, 174 and 175. Under Clause 28, the prosecutor or the director of the assets recovery agency can still apply for a confiscation order after the defendant has been convicted if he absconds. The court can make such an order only if the prosecutor or the director applies to the Crown Court to proceed under the clause and the court believes it appropriate for it to do so. It is the word "appropriate" with which we take issue. It would be better for the court to proceed under the clause only if it were just rather than unjust to do so. A court will be more familiar with a test based on whether it is just or unjust to proceed under the clause rather than merely appropriate or inappropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: As the noble Baroness said, the effect of the amendments would be to make the power of the court to undertake confiscation proceedings against an absconder contingent on whether it were just to do so. We are satisfied that the word "appropriate" has the same meaning as the word "just" in the context in which it is used. It will always be appropriate for a court to exercise its discretion in a manner that is just. The effect sought by the amendments is therefore already achieved by the Bill, so the change is unnecessary. I hope that it meets the spirit of what the

97
noble Baroness seeks to say that, for our purposes, the two words are interchangeable. I therefore hope that she will not press the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I fear that I must take issue with the Minister. We do not believe that "appropriate" and "just" mean the same, either in law or in fact. One is more discretionary than the other. I should like to consider what the Minister has said. We beg to differ hut, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Defendant neither convicted nor acquitted]:
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
On Question, whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Goodhart: I disagree that Clause 29 should stand part of the Bill, and shall also speak against Clause 184 standing part of the Bill. Clause 29 gives the court power to make a confiscation order where the defendant absconds after being charged with an offence but before he has been convicted. That is a dubious proposal. English law does not recognise trial in absentia. In special circumstances there is provision for, for example, removing a defendant from a trial at which he is being disruptive so that the trial continues in his absence, but as a principle, we do not recognise trial in absentia—whether or not that is caused by the defendant absconding.
Whatever may be the position with regard to a civil recovery order, it is plain that a confiscation order is a form of punishment—the Minister accurately described it as a penalty—following a criminal conviction. In Clause 29, the Government are imposing the penalty before the conviction. That is a case of "Sentence first—verdict afterwards"—literally, a Through the Looking-glass situation. It is also unnecessary. If there were no power to make a confiscation order where the defendant had absconded, the prosecution could do at least two things.
First, no doubt in such a case the prosecution would have obtained a restraint order. It could simply leave that restraint order outstanding. Assets are almost certain to be subject to a restraint order; if not, they will no doubt be long gone before the absconder can be brought back for trial. Secondly, the director or prosecutor could switch from seeking a confiscation order to seeking a civil recovery order under Part 5—where absence is not a bar to proceedings continuing.
Permitting the possibility of a confiscation order in a case in which there is no conviction contravenes a fundamental principle of English criminal law. The remedy provided by Clause 29 is therefore inappropriate and should be dropped, especially as alternative means of proceeding are available to achieve the same result.
98
Clause 184 applies the same provision to Northern Ireland. By some oversight, I failed to object to the corresponding clause for Scotland—Clause 115—but if we have to return to the matter, I shall certainly object to it as well.
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has explained why he considers that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. At one point, I heard him say that it was a matter of fundamental principle. If it were, his argument would have some force. However, we are not inventing the wheel here. I shall explain why the clause should remain in the Bill.
The noble Lord's main argument is that Clause 29 deals with a situation in which a person has been neither convicted nor acquitted of an offence and that, even though the person has absconded, it ought not to be possible to make a confiscation order in his absence. The first point that I must make is that the provision was introduced in virtually the same form in the Criminal Justice Act 1993, although, at present, it applies in England and Wales only in drug trafficking cases. It was consolidated in Section 19 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994. The key change made by the clause is to extend—not invent—the power to make a confiscation order in absentia against an absconding drug trafficker to cases involving those who have been charged with other crimes.
The justification for the power is the same as for Clause 28. We cannot think of any reason why a person who evades justice by absconding should be able to avoid having a confiscation order made against him. The fact that a person has escaped prior to his court case being heard must tell us something about that person. Nevertheless, there are, of course, numerous safeguards built into the procedures to ensure that they are fair. I would not be able to defend them were that not the case.
First, a confiscation order cannot be made until a period of two years has elapsed, starting on the date on which the court believes that the defendant absconded. That should knock out cases in which the defendant has absconded not because he is guilty., but for family or health reasons. Secondly—and exceptionally—any third parties who are affected by the confiscation order can make representations to the court. That recognises the fact that the defendant will not be present in court to provide information to the court about his realisable property. An absconder who returns to face proceedings will have an opportunity, if convicted, to challenge the size of the confiscation order under Clause 30. If he is acquitted, the order must, under Clause 31, be set aside. There is also the prospect of compensation under Clause 73—a wide provision—where an order is varied or negated.
I should also say that, by virtue of subsection (5)(d), the assumptions cannot apply to a case that falls to be considered under Clause 29. It might be argued, of course, that the absence of the assumptions from the clause rewards the defendant for absconding. However, the stronger argument is that the principle underlying the assumptions is to require the defendant personally to account for his wealth and to give him an

99
opportunity to rebut the assumptions. That will not be possible in absconder cases, and we believe that it is right that the assumptions should be disapplied in those circumstances. Furthermore, the effect of subsection (5)(e) is that a reconsideration of the defendant's benefit under Clause 22 is not possible while the defendant remains an absconder. The same principle would apply to Clauses 20 and 21, but it is not necessary to disapply those clauses. They apply only if the defendant has been convicted, which is not the case under Clause 29.
The noble Lord mentioned Part 5. There is the question of whether the clause is really necessary, given that civil recovery is possible under Part 5. However, the fact is that, under civil recovery, the authorities are required to prove the criminal derivation of the recovered property. In the case of criminal confiscation, the defendant's benefit is calculated. That is a different kind of exercise and a completely different procedure. A confiscation order may be enforced against any realisable property, legally or illegally obtained. There is a case for both schemes. Suitable provision has been made under Parts 2 and 5 to ensure that there is no double counting.
We consider that the clause serves a useful purpose and is a deterrent to those who may consider absconding before criminal proceedings are concluded. To forestall the obvious question from the noble Lord—"How many times has the power been used?"—I must say that, although it is on the statute book, it has never been used. However, the power must stay in the Bill because, if we were to remove it, there is an unacceptable risk that a major case might fail because their was no power to make a compensation order in cases in which the defendant had absconded.
I have stuck closely to a highly technical brief, and I hope that the noble Lord will take it on board that this is not a deviation from principle: it is an extension of an existing legal activity open to prosecuting authorities. It is already on the statute book.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: It is obvious that it is a considerable extension of the existing law. I acknowledge that it is based on an existing statutory provision, but the Bill extends it from England and Wales to the rest of the United Kingdom. It also extends it from drug trafficking cases to a much larger swathe of offences.
The most important difference is that we now have the procedure for a civil recovery order under Part 5. In the case of somebody who flees abroad to avoid a charge and goes to a country where extradition is not available or where, for some reason, the extradition proceedings do not succeed, a civil recovery order will be applied for. Plainly, it is appropriate to treat someone who absconds abroad during criminal proceedings in the same way as someone who evades criminal proceedings by going abroad and going into hiding or successfully resisting extradition before the proceedings have formally started. The civil recovery
100
order is more appropriate than a procedure that would, in fact, apply a penalty before there had been a conviction. As the existing powers have not been used, there has been no chance to challenge their validity in the courts.
I am still concerned. We will carefully examine what the Minister said and may bring the matter back on Report.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Appeal by prosecutor or Director]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 55:
Page 21, line 15, after "order" insert ", the defendant may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order and"
The noble Lord said: Clause 32 gives to the director or the prosecutor the power to appeal against a decision not to make a confiscation order or to appeal if an order is made but the director or prosecutor is unhappy with it—for instance, he might think that it does not go far enough or confiscate enough property. We do not object to that, but the Bill does not say that the defendant has a right of appeal against a confiscation order.
It would be completely wrong—and probably in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998—to deny the defendant a right of appeal against a confiscation order. Clause 32 does not say that the defendant has such a right. The Government may assume that the confiscation order is part of the sentence and could be covered by the ordinary right of appeal against it. However, the Government's general attitude is that a confiscation order is not part of the sentence, as is made clear, for example, in Clause 16 and Clause 7, which has now been removed from the Bill. There is a plain differentiation between the confiscation order and the sentence.
If that is right, if the confiscation order is not part of the sentence, are the Government satisfied that the defendant will have a right of appeal against the confiscation order on some other basis? If so, what? If not, what possible justification is there for refusing a right of appeal? If the Government really intend that there should be no right of appeal by the defendant, that is something which we would regard as completely unacceptable.
I await with some interest to hear the Minister's comments. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am sure that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
The amendments are based on a misunderstanding. The Bill already gives the defendant the right of appeal in question, as indeed the confiscation legislation always has done. I apologise for this incredibly large and complex Bill. But I draw the noble Lord's attention to Schedule 8, paragraphs 4 and 9, which amend the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 respectively to make it clear that a confiscation order and a specified variation of a confiscation order fall to be treated as a sentence for appeal purposes. That has the effect of

101
creating a right of appeal against a confiscation disposal, which is separate from the right of appeal against sentence.
I appreciate that there has been little time for the noble Lord to read the Bill right through. I have just read it for myself and I believe that what I have said is correct; that is, that the right of appeal already exists, as it should.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister. All I can say is that, given the limited time I had to look through the Bill, I do not believe I can be faulted for not noticing something in Schedule 8 which is introduced by Clause 448 and is way distant from Part 2, which is what we are dealing with.
Be that as it may, I am pleased to hear that my concerns are unfounded and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Kingsland: There are essentially two reasons why we oppose Clause 32 standing part of the Bill. The first is that promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I, like the noble Lord, had not spotted the provisions in Schedule 8 which answered the question that the noble Lord asked.
The second reason why we question whether Clause 32 should stand part of the Bill is, essentially, about the knock-on effect in Clauses 33 and 34. Clause 33 refers to the Court of Appeal's powers on appeal; and Clause 34 concerns a further appeal to the House of Lords.
Normally, appeals to the Court of Appeal concern points of law. Fresh evidence can only be adduced by the parties at this stage in very special circumstances. Yet if Members of the Committee glance at Clause 33(2), it will be seen that,
"On an appeal under section 32(2) the Court of Appeal may confirm the decision, or if it believes the decision was wrong it may …itself proceed under section 6 …or direct the Crown Court to proceed afresh under section 6".
That is an extensive power for the Court of Appeal to wield. It can essentially re-run the whole case, either under its own supervision or instruct the Crown Court to do the same.
Then over the page, in Clause 34, it will be seen again that an appeal lies from the Court of Appeal to the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House; and the powers that that committee can wield in those circumstances are described under subsection (4) and are extensive. Clause 34(3) states:
"On an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal to confirm the decision of the Crown Court not to make a confiscation order or from a decision of the Court of Appeal to quash a confiscation order the House of Lords may …confirm the decision, or … direct the Crown Court to proceed afresh under section 6 if it believes the decision was wrong".
102
Subsection (5) states:
"In proceeding afresh in pursuance of this section the Crown Court must comply with any directions the House of Lords may make".
That means that the individual who is the subject of the confiscation order has to go through no less than three stages of first instance hearings with, as far as I can see, the prospect of having to face, at each level, fresh injections of evidence by the prosecution or by the director. I shall be interested to hear from the noble Lord the Minister the logic that lies behind those provisions and about the extent to which he thinks they conform with the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: It is with some surprise that we see the Opposition contesting this clause. I hope to be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on this point.
It is true that Clause 32 does something quite new in the law of England and Wales and it will be of great benefit to the efficient operation of the legislation. For the first time it provides the authorities with a general right of appeal in confiscation proceedings.
The new right of appeal is available both where the Crown Court makes a confiscation order and where it does not do so, and it is wide enough to cover any decision of the court. The appeal is, of course, concerned with the decisions of the judge, not with the verdict of the jury or any matter underlying the conviction which preceded the confiscation hearing.
The purpose of this appeal is to deal with errors of law; for example, the sort of case where the court refuses to comply with a clear statutory requirement, not least the requirement to go through the confiscation procedures. Such instances are, regrettably, not unknown.
The appeal also covers factual mistakes such as adding up the benefit incorrectly or falling to take an item of property into account as realisable property which should be taken into account. The right of appeal is unlikely to be used frequently but we expect it to function as a valuable quality control mechanism in confiscation proceedings.
The change received widespread support in a consultation which we held in the spring of last year. Simply because the issue was raised by the noble Lord—I hope he does not come back on it but he is always free to do so—it is perhaps worth putting another couple of sentences on the record.
In a document, Criminal Justice:The Way Ahead,] published in February 2001, the Government proposed that the prosecution should have a right of appeal where, because of a judicial ruling, the trial has ended prematurely before the jury has been asked to consider its verdict. The Government also indicated that they would consider whether the prosecution should have an enhanced role in other proceedings, including appeals against sentence. In March last year, following a reference from the Home Office, the Law Commission made recommendations to enable the prosecution to appeal terminating judicial rulings, such as judge-directed acquittals. Sir Robin Auld

103
endorsed those proposals in his review of the criminal courts, which was published in October. We are currently considering the responses to his recommendations and will publish our proposals in a White Paper later this year.
People may believe that there is already a right of appeal against blatant errors of law—for example, judicial review—but that is not the case. Apart from cases subject to a preparatory hearing—fraud and complex and lengthy non-fraud cases—when there is a right of appeal against rulings on admissibility of evidence and points of law before the trial begins, there is no power for the prosecutor to appeal a decision of the Crown Court in a criminal case. In the case of an acquittal my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has powers to seek the opinion of the Court of Appeal on a point of law but the court's opinion does not affect the outcome of the case in question. In the case of sentences, where my noble and learned friend considers that the sentence is unduly lenient he may apply to the Court of Appeal for it to be reviewed. However, as Members of the Committee will appreciate, that is limited to a very small number of specified offences. I believe that it is worth putting that on the record to assist the Committee.
As regards the European Convention on Human Rights, we are satisfied that the Bill complies with the ECHR. It has been signed by the Home Secretary and myself on advice. However, if the noble Lord wishes to elucidate now or in the future which aspects concern him I shall have the matter considered and report back.
9 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I am obliged to the Minister for his reply. I should need a lot of convincing that it was appropriate to allow an appeal, on behalf of the prosecutor, from a direction to acquit in the Crown Court. I await with interest to see whether the Government come forward with a concrete legislative proposal to that effect.
I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I shall reflect on what he said. In my submission, it is an unprecedented set of powers for the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House to wield with respect to a single matter. I question the fairness of an individual being subject to essentially the same procedure on no fewer than three occasions.
I cannot point to any decision that the Court of Human Rights made with respect to such a situation because I cannot think of any other provision, either in United Kingdom law or the law of any continental country, which reflects what is in Clauses 32 to 34 of the Bill. I shall consider these exchanges and return to the matter on Report.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Court's powers on appeal]: Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 22, line 7. leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
104
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Appeal to House of Lords]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 58:
Page 23, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Conditions for exercise of powers]: Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 27, line 12, leave out "Crown" and insert "High"
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to ensure that unusually complex cases can still he heard in the High Court.
The removal of the High Court jurisdiction over restraint orders could, on one view, be seen as welcome. It would bring, as we believe that the Government intend, all confiscation and restraint matters into a single forum: that is, the criminal courts. It would end the anomaly of having to apply for civil legal aid in the context of criminal proceedings when one is faced with a restraint order for which criminal legal aid has been granted.
However, proprietary rights can be extremely complex, often involving several parties and a number of different jurisdictions. Previously restraint orders were considered sufficiently complex to require the expertise of the High Court jurisdiction and High Court judges more used to dealing with these matters.
We are of the view that the Crown Court may not be a suitable jurisdiction, particularly for some complex cases. Bringing the matter within the jurisdiction of the Crown Court should at the very least trigger a very high degree of training of Crown Court judges to deal with such matters. Alternatively, the Crown Court judge should be allowed to refer complex matters to the High Court or at least ensure—the amendment does not reflect this—that only High Court judges sitting in the Crown Court deal with restraint orders. This would be similar to the current provisions relating to the changing of the Crown Court trial venues which can be dealt with only in front of a High Court judge.
As the Bill is drafted, a complex matter could come before a newly qualified recorder who is required to deal with sophisticated financial orders which until now have been dealt with only by experienced High Court judges. I very much support what Mr Dominic Grieve, Member for Beaconsfield, said in another place when he sought reassurance from the Lord Chancellor's Department on the training programme envisaged and the resources available.
We are concerned that, as drafted, the proposal risks specialist work being spread too thinly. In that case there will be bad decisions by inexperienced judges leading to a plethora of appeals. We suggest, also, that there may be a reluctance by police prosecutors to expose themselves to legal areas with which they are unfamiliar. In addition, it could lead to inconsistency of decisions around the country, resulting from local areas following their own practice. The result stemming from that is adverse decisions preventing

105
deployment of the jurisdiction in that area. The proposal is inconsistent with the "centre of excellence" theory proposed by the Bill in relation to training investigators to remove the restraint and receivership work to local areas and Crown Court judges.
A further consideration is that there are no practice rules for the Crown Courts for civil proceedings. Even if there were rules, redrafted and created, it is completely contrary to the practice and experience of the Crown Court to administer a highly complex civil jurisdiction, produce detailed orders, keep a court file in the same sense as a civil court and allow inspection by parties of the court file. There are no qualified lawyers assisting Crown Court judges. That could have an adverse impact on Crown Court time and on its carrying out what it is supposed to do, which is to try criminal cases. Specialist civil work is heavy on preparation time and on time to prepare reserved judgments. To be effective I respectfully suggest that the work must be done by specialists.
At present there is no evidence that the High Court administers the work badly or inefficiently. Nor is there evidence of it having too much work to cope with. We believe that the contrary is true. In short, we are concerned that this proposal is counterproductive. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: An identical amendment was tabled and debated in another place on 29th November last year. On that occasion, we made clear that this fundamental change to the legislation is needed to ensure that confiscation is converted from an incidental disposal into one that is routinely used in criminal cases. Transferring restraint proceedings to the Crown Court was a specific recommendation of the report of the Performance and Innovation Unit on which the Bill is substantially based.
We remain of the view that the transfer of restraint from the High Court to the Crown Court is fully justified. Our starting point is the number of restraint orders currently made. As the PIU report pointed out, there were only 252 orders made in 1997 and 247 in 1998. Throughout Part 2 of the Bill the Government's aim is to increase the use of confiscation as a tool against acquisitive crime. Effective and early restraint is a critical element of that process. The ease and speed with which cash and assets can be concealed and transferred to the safety of foreign jurisdictions requires that assets must be frozen to prevent that happening.
The Government consider the transfer of the restraint function to the Crown Court to be unavoidable given the anticipated rapid growth in asset recovery proceedings in general. In our view, the Administrative Court would simply not be able to cope with the heavier workload. I remind the Committee that the Crown Office of the High Court is the only forum currently authorised to hear such cases. It numbers just 20 judges, who sit mainly in London and deal with a huge range of work and not just
106
restraint proceedings. It is vital that restraint orders are available routinely and at local level to support the greater number of confiscation cases that we envisage.
In short, as a recently:retired High Court judge put it in response to the consultation exercise on the published draft clauses for the Bill earlier this year,
"transferring the jurisdiction from the High Court to the Crown Court is likely to be beneficial".
It is true that restraint cases sometimes raise issues of the utmost complexity, but it is difficult to imagine an area of the law where that might not occasionally be the case. In our view, the large majority of restraint cases are likely to be routine. Contrary to what one may hear from some sources, restraint is not rocket science and we are confident that the Crown Court will be able to cope with it.
I remind the Committee that the Crown Court has been dealing with complex property issues for many years by virtue of its existing involvement in post-trial confiscation proceedings. Those proceedings can be extremely complex, but we have never heard it suggested that the Crown Court is unable to cope with them. In addition, as the PIU report pointed out, the increasing throughput of restraint cases will help to build up the Crown Court's expertise in that area. For those reasons I strongly oppose the amendment and invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I make no apology for the amendment being identical to one tabled in another place. We were not happy with the response in another place so we tabled it again in your Lordships' House.
We believe that this proposal is not practical and we do not believe that it will work for all the reasons that I suggested. It would be otiose of me to repeat them, but we shall consider carefully whether to return to the matter at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 60:
Page 27, line 36, leave out from first "the" to end of line 37 and insert "relevant amount (as defined in that section)"
On Question, amendment agreed to. Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 27, line 44, leave out from first "the" to end of line 45 and insert "relevant amount (as defined in that section)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 28, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) any period of investigation exceeding 12 months will be presumed to constitute undue delay unless otherwise shown. A restraint order can be made for a maximum of 6 months and must be reviewed unless extended by written consent"
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to prevent property and funds of a suspect and third parties being frozen pre-charge for unnecessarily long periods. Allowing restraint orders

107
at the investigative stage will have an enormous impact on fraud trials, prior to which an investigation stage may have lasted for up to three or four years.
In that case is it being suggested that property may be restrained for the whole of that period? Clause 41(2) states that a restraint order may be made if,
"a criminal investigation has been started in England and Wales with regard to an offence, and there is reasonable cause to believe that the alleged offender has benefited from his criminal conduct".
One hopes that a court will be rigorous in requiring a high standard of information from the investigating agency, not the prosecuting body, since no charges will have been brought before making an order. However, experience suggests that this will not be the case and that a court will impose a restraint order, albeit on flimsy information impacting on someone's personal life; for example, an innocent third party trader whose stock is frozen during an investigation leading to him becoming bankrupt to an enormous extent and for many years, when theoretically no charges may be brought at all. Indeed, there may be Article 8 considerations in this regard.
It should also be noted that Clauses 48 to 53 deal with receivers. Again, the Bill distinguishes between management receivers appointed in relation to restraint orders and enforcement receivers who are appointed once a confiscation order has been made. These are appointed in the Crown Court and this highlights the necessity for a high degree of training for Crown Court judges. Many judges will have had no experience at all of these areas and `the potential for miscarriages of justice is alarming. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: This group of amendments includes three amendments in our name. The first is Amendment No. 64. It is intended to achieve the same purpose as the amendment of the noble Baroness. We are agreed that we are concerned about this issue. We propose a slightly different solution, which is that when a restraint order is made it should be made for a period not exceeding 12 months. There would be power to make a further restraint order before the end of the 12 months. The purpose is to ensure that any restraint order is reviewed at yearly intervals.
It is quite clear that it would be wholly wrong for a restraint order to be imposed and then left while the prosecution dillies and dallies over the investigation or indeed the trial itself. That has been recognised by the Government in Clause 43(7), where it is stated that if,
"an investigation was started or an application was to be made, the court must discharge the order if within a reasonable time proceedings for the offence are not started or the application is not made".
We believe that the most effective way of ensuring that that result is achieved is by requiring any order to be reviewed by the court at intervals of not more than a year. That will clearly encourage the prosecution to keep moving and to make sure that it is not at risk of
108
having the restraint order thrown out. That measure is highly desirable and would not basically interfere with the process if work is carried on as it should be.
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness referred to orders based on flimsy information and the noble Lord referred to the prosecution dillying and dallying. I put the case on behalf of Joe Public and not the criminal. I am not saying that they are supporting criminals because that is clearly not the case.
For some criminals, at the first sniff of an investigation the assets are out of the gate and up the road quicker than the investigator can take his notebook out of his pocket. That is why we need to be in at the beginning of the investigation. We are dealing here with serious criminals in the sense that they are people who can shift assets very, very quickly and with the speed of lightning sometimes. There will not be any dillying and dallying, but we need to restrain some criminals at the beginning of the investigation and not when charges are made. That is the nub of the issue.
It is always open to the defendant if he believes that the restraint order had continued for too long to return to court to have it lifted. That possibility is always open. The courts exercise discretion in any event in making restraint orders. They already refuse to extend them if they consider that there has been unreasonable delay.
I am sure that the orders will not be based on flimsy information. I can assure noble Lords that there will be no dillying and dallying. This power is necessary simply because of the way in which organised criminals, those to whom the Bill's provisions are directed, operate.
By definition, some of cases are extremely complicated. I am not saying that there is an excuse for the investigation to continue for years. If it did, the defendant would be likely to apply to the court and the judge would lift the restraint order. The provision is there as a stop on behalf of the defendant. We should be reluctant to change the present position. Noble Lords may wish to think about it, but I hope that they will withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response and for his reassurance that what we suggest will not take place. We shall consider his remarks. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Restraint orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 28, line 31, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 66A.
With regard to Amendment No. 65, the provisions of Clauses 41 and 42 combine to have the following effect. First, any person under investigation or against

109
whom proceedings have been started with regard to an offence, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that he has benefited from his criminal conduct, is liable to have a restraining order made in relation to all his realisable property regardless of the amount of potential benefit.
Secondly, a person who is under investigation but against whom proceedings have not been started may be permitted, by way of exception to the restraint order, to expend funds on reasonable legal expenses in relation to the offence or offences under investigation.
Thirdly, a person against whom proceedings have been started can in no circumstances apply for an exception to the restraint order as regards reasonable legal expenses in relation to those proceedings.
There is now available public funding for legal representation before proceedings have been started, which was no doubt the reason for permitting that exception to a restraint order in the Bill.
The Government have now acted to reduce publicly funded representation in criminal proceedings, in high cost cases by approximately 40 per cent from that which was regarded as reasonable by officials under the taxation system. The Bar Council's argument that the cuts have been too severe to ensure that representation in these cases will continue at an appropriate level have been rejected on the basis that the market will decide. The legal representatives under new, very high cost cases contract arrangements are accordingly not obliged to undertake the work unless a satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the work that will be paid for and the rate for it in advance of the work being done.
By preventing anyone charged from applying for access to restrained realisable property in relation to reasonable legal expenses in connection with the offence charge, the following practical consequences are likely to occur. First, a person under investigation who is then charged will often be forced into a change of representation as a result of the instructed representative not being prepared to undertake the work at the publicly funded work rates on offer. Thus, his choice and continuity of representative will be substantially removed.
Secondly, a person who is charged will have access only to those legal representatives who are prepared to carry out the work at publicly funded levels. This will restrict the choice and quality of representation substantially.
Thirdly, these restrictions apply regardless of how small the benefit may be in relation to the total realisable assets. Fourthly, the restrictions will create an entirely false market in legal representation in these cases whereby the Government dictate the only rate for the work, having introduced a new contracting system which depends on the representative's right to refuse the work for the contract "negotiation" to have any meaning.
If the real purpose behind the provisions is not total control by Government of all legal representation in these important cases, the answer surely lies in permitting reasonable—not unreasonable—legal
110
expenses to be met in all situations, as determined by the court. An amendment to delete Clause 42(4) would permit reasonable legal expenses in all circumstances, and thereby provide a reasonable choice of representative to the accused person.
The purpose of Amendment No. 66A is to ensure that any person affected by the making of a restraint order not only has the right but the means to apply for a variation. Currently public funding in the criminal courts is available only to the defendant when charges are brought. It is important to note that a large amount of publicity has surrounded the asset confiscation aspects of this legislation but the power of Crown Court judges to impose restraint orders at the beginning of an investigation on what may be only minor evidence has enormous significance. It may have far-reaching consequences for defendants and should be opposed on principle.
An order may also be made against third parties who would have no recourse to legal aid as the proceedings would be of a criminal nature. A third party would not be under investigation. It would clearly be unjust and unwarranted interference unless further consideration is given to the rights of third parties in that regard. No compensation would be due unless the investigator had been negligent, which is a high threshold test to meet.
It is also important to note that under Clause 43 an accredited financial investigator employed by the director of the assets recovery agency may apply for a restraint order. It is crucial that those officers are well trained and do not simply replicate the often shoddy methods by which investigators currently apply for search warrants, for example, on small amounts of information. I am not sure that I dare use the word "flimsy" again. Crown Court judges must be rigorous in testing the information given to them by either employees of the director of the assets recovery agency or by employees of other investigative agencies. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: We have tabled three amendments in the group. Of those, Amendment No. 66 would have exactly the same effect as Amendment No. 65, except that we want to remove subsection (5) as well. Subsection (5) would cease to have any meaning if subsection (4) were removed as it is consequential. We have also tabled Amendment No. 130 to remove the same provision in relation to Scotland and Amendment No. 184 in relation to Northern Ireland. We are therefore entirely at one with the noble Baroness.
I shall not repeat what she said but we agree with her entirely. There is no justification for removing the right of a defendant to use what at that stage is his own money. He will be deprived of it just as effectively if he uses it to pay for an expensive QC as if it were confiscated and went to the Government. There is the possibility that bogus expenses could be incurred. There are unfortunately some crooked solicitors who might arrange to overcharge their client and then hand back the money by some devious route. That could be controlled by ensuring that the expenses allowed are

111
reasonable, as is provided by Clause 42(3). We believe that to be inappropriate. The restriction should be removed so that the funds that are subject to a restraint order can be used to pay the reasonable legal expenses of the defendant, not only in relation to other matters but also in relation to the primary proceedings.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: These matters were given a good thrashing around in another place. But our position remains unchanged: we are unable to accept the amendments, largely because they would make the Bill much less effective than is the case at present. We can see no good reason for doing so.
Essentially, the amendments would allow the courts to release restrained assets to pay for any legal expenses, including those of the defendant. They would, therefore, reverse one of the major changes that the Government have made to the restraint provisions in the Bill. As was explained in another place, the report of the Performance and Innovation Unit found that substantial sums that should be available for confiscation were being dissipated on unnecessary legal expenses. I suppose one could argue that the Government are moving to ensure and keep clean the money that might otherwise be paid to lawyers, protecting them from benefiting from potentially ill-gotten gains. That would be a laudable exercise on the part of the Government.
There is no suggestion that the Bill's removal of some of the powers of the court to release moneys for legal expenses will deprive defendants and other litigants of the right to be represented. Criminal and civil legal aid will be available to cover all proceedings under the Bill on the usual terms.
The only people who would benefit from the amendments would be defendants who wanted to reduce the amount available for confiscation—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—and the less scrupulous element of the legal profession, which, of course, is very small in number. I do not believe that the public would necessarily see the benefit. It is perhaps worth adding that Amendment No. 66A is entirely unnecessary. Schedule 8 to the Bill, which has been widely read by noble Lords, already amends the Access to Justice Act 1999 to make it crystal clear that civil public funding will be available, on the usual terms, to cover the situation. Having outlined those very good reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. However, I do not believe that he made specific reference to a point that I believe I made quite clearly. Given the proposed clause, a person under investigation who is then charged will often be forced into a change of representation. This is an important issue, and something that the Government should
112
carefully consider. A person who is charged will have access only to those legal representatives who are publicly funded—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not quite sure what difference that would make. Perhaps the noble Baroness could assist me in that respect.
Baroness Buscombe: The difference is that such a person will have access only to those legal representatives who are prepared to carry out the work at publicly-funded levels. In that case, the person's choice of representation is diminished. The question is whether or not that is correct in principle. Indeed, is that just?
We believe that our proposal is sensible. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, observed, we are talking about removing the right of the defendant to use his own money, which is something that would seem to be rather more sensible than turning to publicly-funded alternatives. It is a practical suggestion. We are disappointed that the Government have not changed their view since the debate took place in the other place. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Application, discharge and variation]:
[Amendment No. 66A not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Appeal to Court of Appeal]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 67:
Page 29, line 38, leave out subsection I and insert—
"(1) The following can appeal against the court's decision on an application for a restraint order—

(a) the applicant, or

(b) any person affected by the decision,

and public funding will be available for any person appealing against a decision under (b)."
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to allow a right of appeal both by the investigator against a refusal to make a restraint order and also to the suspect and any third party to appeal against the making of an order, with the public funding that would enable them to do so.
Currently, the wording allows the investigator making the application a right of appeal only against the refusal to make an order. Clauses 44 and 45 deal with appeals from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords. There is no general right of appeal under the Supreme Court Act 1981 from the Crown Court to the High Court. This legislation could create such a right.
However, it would not create a right to appeal against the making of a restraint order, merely against the refusal of a Crown Court to vary or discharge an order. There are clearly resource implications for Crown Courts in dealing with restraint orders. Indeed, there are also training implications which will cost time

113
and money. There are scheduling implications and, one might suggest, there are cultural implications in the sense that Crown Courts are wholly unused to dealing with property matters of the type which are in issue in restraint proceedings.
Although Crown Courts are used to dealing with confiscation, restraint is a wholly different matter, in particular in the light of the ability to apply for orders prior to the institution of proceedings. Up until now, Crown Courts have never been involved in criminal proceedings or property proceedings prior to a person being charged. We believe that it is therefore imperative that a suspect and third party rights are safeguarded. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I strongly support this amendment and it is only through an oversight that I did not add my name to it. Frankly, it is ridiculous to have a situation where the person against whom an order is made cannot appeal directly against the restraint order. He can do so only by applying to discharge the order and then appealing against a refusal to discharge it. That achieves exactly the same result, but it does so by involving a wholly unnecessary intermediate process. It would be very much simpler if the person against whom the order is made had the right of a direct appeal against the making of the restraint order.
Lord Rooker: We do not think that these amendments are either necessary or desirable. As noble Lords have said, they would give persons other than the investigator or, for that matter, the prosecutor, a right of appeal against the court's refusal to make a restraint order.
The Bill has been drafted precisely to prevent that outcome. There is no error or failure here. We fail to see why a person other than the one who applied for a restraint order should have any need for a right of appeal against the refusal to make it.
A further effect of the amendment would be to require an appeal to the Court of Appeal to be lodged immediately. As we explained in the other place, the Bill expects individuals to apply to the Crown Court for a variation of the order first, and only then to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The report in Hansard of 29th November makes that clear. In fact, this is currently what happens in practice. As most restraint orders are made ex parte, the defendant and third parties will not have had a chance to be heard, so it makes sense that they should first apply to the Crown Court and then appeal against the decision of the Crown Court under Clause 44(2).
If the amendment were carried, the Court of Appeal's time would be wasted quite unnecessarily and there would be massive resource implications. I should also stress that public funding on the usual terms is already available for these applications, whether through criminal public funding in the case of the defendant or civil public funding as set out for other persons in the amendments to the Access to Justice Act 1999, which is affected by Schedule 8 to the Bill.
114
Having made those comments, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his full response which I shall consider carefully in Hansard. I shall also take this opportunity to read through Schedule 8 to the Bill.
However, on the face of it, my immediate response is that I cannot agree with the Minister, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support and clarity of approach to the rather nonsensical problem before us. I shall think about it further, but we may well return to the matter on Report. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clauses 45 and 46 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 68:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
"HEARSAY EVIDENCE
(1) Evidence must not be excluded in restraint proceedings on the ground that it is hearsay (of whatever degree).
(2) Sections 2 to 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 (c. 38) apply in relation to restraint proceedings as those sections apply in relation to civil proceedings.
(3) Restraint proceedings are proceedings—

(a) for a restraint order;

(b) for the discharge or variation of a restraint order;

(c) on an appeal under section 44 or 45.

(4) Hearsay is a statement which is made otherwise than by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings and which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated.
(5) Nothing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence which is admissible apart from this section."
The noble Lord said: The amendment flows from the transfer of the restraint jurisdiction from the High Court to the Crown Court. Hearsay evidence is nowadays routinely admitted in civil proceedings. Restraint proceedings currently take place in the High Court and they, likewise, rely on hearsay evidence. This is important where the authorities need to get a restraint order at short notice. The prosecutor will ordinarily put in a witness statement referring to the sources which make him believe that the case is appropriate for restraint.
The procedures of the Crown Court, as a mainly criminal court by contrast, have far more stringent evidential rules. Now that restraint is to be based in the Crown Court, more stringent evidential rules could mean that hearsay evidence is not admissible. That would have a very serious effect on the conduct of the proceedings. The amendment puts it beyond doubt that the Crown Court, in dealing with any restraint matter, can accept hearsay evidence in the same way as the High Court.
I draw the Committee's attention to the safeguards in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of the clause. These apply Sections 2 to 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 to the Crown Court in a restraint proceeding. Sections 2 to 4

115
of the 1995 Act apply three main safeguards to hearsay evidence. They provide for notice to be given of its proposed introduction; they provide that a person who has given hearsay evidence may be examined on it; and they give the court guidance as to the weight it should put on the evidence.
The amendment is technical but it amounts to a new clause. It is important because it bites on the practical operation of all future restraint cases. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I have considered this matter very carefully. It is obvious that any introduction of hearsay evidence into criminal proceedings—and these are plainly criminal proceedings—where it was not available before is a matter that needs to be looked at very carefully. Nevertheless, having looked at the matter, I recognise that the introduction of hearsay evidence is solely in relation to restraint orders. It does not apply to the evidence on which the relevant conviction is based, nor does it apply to the evidence on the basis of which the confiscation order is obtained. In those circumstances I do not see any reason to object to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 47 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Applications and appeals]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 69:
Page 43, line 15, leave out "is authorised to do so by" and insert "falls within subsection (2A).
(2A) An accredited financial investigator falls within this subsection if he is one of the following or is authorised for the purposes of this section by one of the following—"
The noble Lord said: These are fine-tuning amendments. They tidy up Clauses 68 and 222, which set out the conditions under which an accredited financial investigator may apply for a restraint order.
116
The clauses as currently drafted have a rather odd effect—that is, that a senior accredited financial investigator may authorise another accredited financial investigator to apply for a restraint order but may not apply for one himself or herself. The amendments remove that anomaly. We do not like anomalies in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 70 to 72:
Page 43, line 18, leave out "or"
Page 43, line 25, leave out "is authorised as mentioned in subsection (2)" and insert "falls within subsection (2A)"
Page 43, line 33, leave out "is authorised as mentioned in subsection (2)" and insert "falls within subsection (2A)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Committal by magistrates' court]:
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Employment Bill

    The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]:
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I do not think there is any need to remind the Committee that there are no Divisions and Members of the Committee should speak standing. If there is a Division in the Chamber, the Member of the Committee who is speaking should stop as soon as possible and we shall adjourn for 10 minutes to allow Members of the Committee to vote.
    Clause 45 [Fixed-term work]:
    Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 233:
    Page 49, line 33, at end insert—
    "( ) This section shall not apply to a person in fixed-term employment who has been offered in writing by his employer permanent employment of a substantially similar nature to his fixed-term employment on substantially similar terms and conditions to those of other permanent employees whose employment is of a similar nature."
    The noble Baroness said: Clause 49 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations for the benefit of employees working for a fixed term as distinct from employees working for an indefinite term. This is despite the fact that an employee working on an indefinite term contract may have considerably less security of tenure than one working for a fixed term.
    For example, someone may be employed for a fixed period of six months perhaps to stand in for someone who is taking maternity leave. However, the fixed-term employee may be subject to dismissal oil a month's notice, or a period of notice determined by statute according to the length of his service with that employer.
    People enter into fixed-term employment for a variety of reasons ranging from necessity to personal choice. The fact is that fixed-term employees are not necessarily the downtrodden, exploited group of workers which the EU seems to believe need special protection as evinced by Directive 99/70/EC mentioned in this clause.
    To the contrary of what I have just said, it is equally true that some employees on fixed terms are treated less favourably than their colleagues working on indefinite contracts. It is also true that some unscrupulous employers may use the device of employing workers on a series of consecutive fixed-term contracts in order to avoid having to give the employee benefits that accrue for long service. It is against this sort of abuse that this clause is intended to work.
    CWH 520
    The sort of philosophy that seems to permeate Brussels in the social engineering that their directives often generate—directives eagerly adopted and, I to say, gold-plated here—is that all employers are wicked capitalists (and I hope I have said enough in the days leading up to now to suggest that not all employers are that way at all) grinding the faces of the poor who must be protected by the paternal bureaucrats. It reminds me of the slogan in Animal Farm,
    "four legs good, two legs bad",
    or, in this context, employees are always good and employers are always bad.
    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the philosophical approach by the regulators to fixed-term work, there is one category of fixed-term employee who does not need any special protection or special privileges to give him equality with his indefinite-term colleagues. That is a fixed-term employee who has been offered permanent employment by his employer.
    The amendment sets out stringent conditions for exception to operate. The offer must be in writing so that there is no doubt that the work has been offered and on what conditions; the work must be substantially similar to fixed-term contract; and the employment must be on substantially the same terms and conditions to the other employees whose work is of a similar nature.
    In other words, what we are looking at is a fixed-term employee who is being offered to be upgraded, if that is the correct description, to permanent employment. I do not suggest that such an employee should be compelled to take up the indefinite employment. If he chooses not to do so for whatever personal reason, that is entirely a matter for him.
    What the amendment does is to say that the fixed-term employee who is offered a permanent job has to make up his mind which type of employment he prefers and, if he chooses to stick to his fixed term, he cannot have his cake and eat it and enjoy the special privileges being accorded to fixed-term employees. I beg to move.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): The intention of the amendment seems to be that the regulations made under Clause 45 should not apply to fixed-term employees who have been offered suitable permanent employment at any point during their employment and refused the offer. This would mean that the provisions in the regulations limiting the use of successive fixed-term contracts would not apply. However, the other provisions in the regulations—for example, the right to be informed of permanent vacancies—would also not apply. An employer would therefore be within his rights to continue to employ the fixed term employee on an indefinite number of successive fixed term contracts. That would be the case even when a fixed term employee decided, at some time after he had been offered and refused permanent employment, that he would after all prefer a permanent job in the organisation.

    CWH 521
    The directive requires us to prevent the abuse of successive fixed term contracts; the amendment could allow abuses of such contracts. As such, it could well mean that we would be unable to meet the directive's transposition requirements. The directive applies to all fixed term employees (with a few specified exceptions) regardless of whether they wish to be in fixed term or permanent employment.
    The intention of the amendment may be to protect those fixed term employees who command better remuneration packages as a result of their fixed term status. The draft regulations stipulate that where a fixed term contract is renewed in breach of the limitation on successive fixed term contracts, it is to be regarded as a contract of indefinite duration. The regulations do not require that the employee must accept the terms of other permanent employees doing similar work in these circumstances just because his contract is to be regarded as permanent. There is nothing in the regulations that would require a fixed term employee to accept a lowering of his remuneration package as a result of permanent status.
    The abuse of successive fixed term contracts must be prevented, yet it is also important that employers and employees are able to enter into contracts that suit their needs. Fixed term contracts are used in a variety of sectors, ranging from teaching to transport.
    The mechanism in the draft fixed term regulations provides flexibility for employers and employees by allowing the use of fixed term contracts beyond the statutory limit where their use is objectively justified. The limit can also be varied by collective or workforce agreements. That mechanism is therefore sufficiently flexible that employer and employees can vary the limitation on the use of successive fixed term contracts where that will suit their particular needs better.
    I turn to the other aspect of the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The draft regulations need not allow highly paid fixed term employees to have their cake and eat it by obtaining permanent employment on better terms and conditions that were designed to compensate them for the non-permanent nature of their work. Terms and conditions of employment are for negotiation between employers and employees. Employers will still be able to negotiate alterations to contracts with their employees.
    I hope that the noble Baroness is satisfied with that explanation and ask her to withdraw her amendment.
    Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister suggested that my amendment might have unintentional consequences—I am not sure about that, and I will read what he said. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment.s Nos. 234 and 235 not moved.]
    Clause 45 agreed to.
    Clause 46 [Fixed-term work: Northern Ireland]:
    [Amendments Nos. 236 to 238 not moved.]
    Clause 46 agreed to.
    Clause 47 [Flexible working]:
    Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 239:
    Page 51, leave out lines 28 and 29.
    The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 240 to 244, 247 to 251, 253, 254 and 256.
    Clause 43 introduced a new statutory concept of learning representatives. In the same way, Clause 47 introduces a new right for workers—the right to demand a unilateral variation in the freely negotiated terms of employment. If an employer attempted to do such a thing, the employee could rightly claim that he or she had been wrongly dismissed and obtain compensation—probably quite substantial compensation at that. Although there is a law against wrongful dismissal, I do not believe there is a countervailing law against wrongful leaving.
    As I said as a preface to my remarks on Clause 43. this new legislative concept has some rough edges which need trimming, especially as this whole clause was not before the Committee in the other place. That is why I want to speak to it here.
    Clause 47 introduces new Sections 80F, 80G, 80H and 80I and consequential Amendments Nos. 47D and 104C into the Employment Rights Act 1996. In two separate amendments—Amendments Nos. 239 and 240—I propose the deletion of paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of subsection (1)(a) of new Section 80F. Those two paragraphs go further than merely giving the employee the right to alter the number of hours that he is required to work and the times when he is required to work those hours. Those two factors, and those alone, are what are generally understood by "flexible working", or "flexi-time", as it is often called.
    When I was in business in Germany, the staff worked flexi-time, clocking in and out to suit their personal needs. Women with young children set their hours around the times their children were in school, and some of the men found it convenient either to come in early or to stay later. The employees were required simply to work a minimum number of hours every business week.
    Paragraph (a)(iii) suggests that there should be a further right in addition to the right to vary one's working hours; namely, the right of an employee to choose whether he works at home or at his employer's place of business. I agree that these days many jobs can, indeed, be done at home via computers and modems. Unfortunately, that facility is not available to manual workers who are required to work in a factory or on a building site or wherever.
    As I said previously, this Government wish to secure the egalitarian ideas emanating from Brussels, such as equal rights for fixed-term workers, as discussed in relation to the previous clause. Therefore, I believe that it is ironical that the Government are proposing rights which, from a practical point of view, can be exercised only by one type of employee—the so-called white collar worker, as distinct from the blue collar one.

    CWH 523
    Ignoring that purely philosophical aspect, the point is that giving the employee the right to choose the venue at which he works is likely to cause major disruption to the employer over and above that which will already be occasioned by the working of flexible hours and the changes to those hours. It is also likely to cause resentment among other employees who must not only work normal office hours but must struggle to and from work on the inadequate public transport system. The flexi-hours concept was intended to enable a new parent to look after his child more easily; it was not intended to allow the employee to carry out all his or her work in an atmosphere where that work would be subject to the distraction of looking after a child throughout the working day.
    Amendment No. 240 relates to paragraph (a)(iv), which is also objectionable because yet another blank cheque is being demanded. The subparagraph proposes that the Secretary of State can alter other terms of employment. As I pointed out, the Bill already allows the employee to change the number of hours that he works, the times at which he works them and, unless my previous amendment is accepted, where he carries out his work.
    What else can he ask to change? Perhaps he would like to change the type of work that he does or change his duties altogether. I certainly cannot think of anything else that would be in a normal employment contract. Perhaps, when he replies, the Minister will tell us what the Government have in mind. If he cannot do so, then I am not sure what purpose this subparagraph serves and I believe that it should simply be deleted, as the amendment seeks to do.
    With Amendments Nos. 241 and 242 we come to new Section 80F(2), which deals with the contents of the employee's application for a contract variation. However, subsection (2) has an elementary drafting error which Amendment No. 241, to which I am now speaking, seeks to rectify. Although, as I said, the subsection specifies the contents of the application to change the terms of employment, it does not specify the fact that the application should be in writing. Without that requirement, there could be endless arguments as to what the employee had requested or, indeed, whether he had requested anything at all. Common sense suggests that the only practical way for an employee to apply would be by letter but, so long as there is no requirement that there should be something in writing, the scope of the argument, and indeed bad faith, could be endless.
    The way in which subsection (2) specifies what the application must tell the employer makes it clear that the only practical way to do that would be in writing. However, there is always the danger that someone who fails to comply will—or could—pretend that he did so orally. To paraphrase the late Sam Goldwyn, a verbal application is not worth the paper it is written on.
    Amendment No. 242 adds to the essential contents of the application set out in subsection (2). The list of contents has, in my view, been very fairly drawn. I am especially glad to note that the employee is to be required to give some consideration—pursuant to
    CWH 524
    subsection (c)—to the effect that that might have on his employer. That would mitigate against people simply taking advantage of the concession because it is theirs as a right, and not because it is really needed.
    However, one piece of information is missing from the list. That is covered by the amendment. Nowhere in the clause as it is currently drafted is the employee asked to explain why she or he needs to change the terms of employment; all that would be needed, for example, would be a statement such as, "I need to leave by 3 o'clock in order to collect my child from school". If the employee has a valid reason, there will be no difficulty in saying what it is. On the other hand, without being told what the reason is, the employer will not be in a position to give due consideration to the application that new Section 80G requires him to do.
    Amendment No. 243 would correct an important omission from subsection (4). The Bill, quite rightly, insists that an employee may not make multiple applications and that, if an employee applies for a change, he or she has to stick with it for a year and especially cannot seek to modify the modification within that year. The amendment seeks to make such a requested change of terms a permanent change—"permanent", that is, to the extent that it will have to be adhered to for the same period of the year that the Government have specified for the interval between his applications. What cannot be permitted is for the employee to apply for a contract variation for a short period, such as a month or a few months.
    An employer will always have to reorganise his business in order to accommodate an employee. As it is currently drafted, I foresee resentment among workers without children who might have major family commitments, such as elderly parents or a disabled spouse. The employer needs to be protected against the disruption caused by short-term chopping and changing. Also, there is nothing to prevent an employer and employee from coming to an amicable voluntary arrangement if that suits them.
    I do not know why the Government seem to think that every arrangement between parties has to be the result of a compulsion. There are more good and understanding employers out there than there are very bad ones.
    Amendment No. 244 is needed because, once again, the Government are asking for a blank cheque. The Secretary of State wants the power to specify the period of employment before an employee qualifies for the benefits of contract variation. The Secretary of State wants power to fix the qualifying duration of employment. Why cannot the Government tell us here and now just what they have in mind with regard to these provisions? I am sure that they must have thought out the matter already. Judging by previous form, whatever the Government specify in the first: set of regulations, the qualifying time might gradually be eroded. We have seen that in relation to the issues of redundancy, wrongful dismissal, equal rights and so on.
    It is also not unreasonable to expect a new employee to know what his or her commitments will be in the next six months and to have them covered in the

    CWH 525
    original contract. However, what is not reasonable would be for the Secretary of State to, for example, set an arbitrary period of four weeks or even less. Six months is a perfectly reasonable qualifying period by any standard.
    I turn to Amendment No. 246—I am not moving Amendment No. 245. It is quite possible that an employee may have more than one child under the age of six years, thereby qualifying for the right to request a variation of her contract. I said "quite possible" but in fact it is a very frequent occurrence. In my own case, there was a brief period when I had three children under that age and when the eldest reached the age of six, I had his two brothers still under the age of six for another three years.
    It is agreed that a mother with a child under the age of six should be able to seek a variation in her terms of employment. This application limits the variation in terms of one application for every 12 months. This is consistent with the Government's own proposals in new Section 80F(4)in which they provided that an employee could not make more than one application in a period of 12 months.
    However, the section relates to one child, as subsection (3) makes clear. It refers to the 14th day before the child concerned reaches the age of six. Members of the Committee will note the words "the child"; "child" in the singular. An employee seeking to take advantage of the right to flexible working now to be granted to him should make up his mind as to what his needs are and if there are conflicting needs because he has more than one child, he should tailor his application to take that into account.
    I accept that there could be a change in circumstances in the period of 12 months. Another child could arrive, but, at worst, there would be a period of three months at the end of the period covered by the original application when the employee finds himself with a new child before he can make another application. I do not say that in any callous sense.
    In subsection (4)—as I have already pointed out—the Government themselves prohibited a new application before 12 months from the original one. It may well be that an employee could in the circumstances that I have discussed suffer some inconvenience for a very short period, but this legislation has to be even handed. The convenience of the employer, often a small one, also has to be considered.
    Amendment No. 247 deals with the new Section 80G(1)(b), which specifies the grounds upon which the employer may refuse an application for a contract variation. Subject to the four amendments that I shall be proposing next, the nine-item list contained in paragraph (b) seems to be reasonable. However, the preamble needs to be amended. It states that an employer:
    "shall only refuse the application because he considers that one or more of the following grounds applies".
    The amendment I propose does not depart from the draft wording in the Bill, except that I believe that the employer's belief must be reasonable. Presumably the
    CWH 526
    addition of this word adds to the employee's rights, so that he might not object to it this time. As drawn, the word "reasonably" has to be implied and nowhere does the Bill give the tribunal actual power to do so or specifically to prevent the employer from acting arbitrarily or unreasonably. Otherwise my amendment does not alter the principle of the clause in any way.
    Amendments Nos. 248 to 251, the next four, are to improve the grounds upon which the employer may refuse an application. I hasten to point out that they are not designed to minimise the employee's rights, but they are designed to tighten up the wording—to be more prescriptive.
    Amendment No. 248 alters the words "the burden of costs" in paragraph (i) to "material additional cost". It is inevitable that complying with every application for contract variation will result in some additional cost. Practically every provision in the Bill will add to the burden of costs on employers, but the amendment ensures that only material increases will be taken into account. What is material, as in other instances in this Bill—and, indeed, in the general rules of construction applied by the civil and criminal courts—will, of course, depend entirely upon the circumstances and there should be no difficulty for any experienced tribunal in deciding whether a cost is material or is not.
    In Amendment No. 249 I propose that the word "staff" be changed to the word "employees". I do not know where the new concept of staff as distinct from employees has crept into the Bill. We have already found ourselves debating the difference between workers and employees—I think during the previous session—and we certainly should not need to introduce yet another word that would cause confusion and a distinction, perhaps without a difference, and create grounds for nit-picking litigation.
    Amendment No. 250 alters paragraph (4) which deals with the recruitment of what the Bill calls "staff and who I propose should also be called "employees". It has to be the case that the employer should be recruiting employees of similar capacity on similar terms and conditions. The employer cannot be compelled to recruit a replacement, whether capable or not, and who expects different wages and different employment terms. All the employer should be required to do is to replace like with like. The amendment makes it clear that the replacement or supplementary staff to be recruited should be suitably qualified to meet the employer's needs.
    Amendment No. 251 to paragraph (viii) is essential because as drawn it simply does not make sense. Even without my amendment to the preamble and using the words of the Bill, it reads:
    "one or more of the following grounds as applies
    (viii) planned structural changes".
    What does that mean? I presume it means that the change of terms of employment would be incompatible with planned structural changes, but the

    CWH 527
    words as I have just read them simply do not say that. That is what the amendment makes clear. The clause should now read:
    "one or more of the following grounds applies
    (viii) incompatibility with planned structural changes".
    In no sense does this amendment alter the effect of the Bill.
    I now turn to Amendment No. 253. New Section 80G(2) specifies the regulations that may be made governing an application for variation in terms of a contract. Paragraph (k) makes provision for an employee to be accompanied by someone of a description prescribed by the intended regulations. I assume that this is likely to be a trade union representative or a fellow employee, but whoever it is there is no provision for an employer to receive similar outside assistance. I think that that is unfair. It is also yet another breach in the Bill of the Human Rights Convention, notwithstanding the certificate that the Minister has given. Everyone is entitled to be represented by counsel, whatever qualification that counsel has, for the purposes of the Bill.
    Amendment No. 254 is to have the new marginal note:
    "Reduction or withdrawal of benefits under Section 80F application".
    This is a matter of simple justice. If an employer is going to be obliged to acquiesce in the variation in the employee's contract in the form of reduced hours, he should be entitled to a quid pro quo in the form of a proportionate reduction, not only in the pay received by the employee, which is self-evident, but also in any additional benefits that the employee receives.
    Members of the Committee will notice that the amendment refers to benefits paid to the employee, which makes it clear that the amendment refers to cash benefits and not to benefits in kind such as holiday time, company car and such like. It applies only in cases where the working hours are reduced. It does not apply where, for example, it is a simple case of a change in the actual time that the employee works. It refers to profit-sharing schemes, bonuses and other cash paid to employees working under a standard contract.
    The second leg of the amendment, in paragraph (ii) is a long-stop in case there is some form of benefit that cannot be prorated. For example, if an employer pays for an employee's season ticket in return for a 40-hour week and the employee reduces his or her hours to 32 because of taking a three-day weekend, that benefit ought to be reduced. I cannot give any other examples, but I wish to ensure that there is no loophole. It entitles an employee whose cash benefit cannot for some reason or other be prorated to be given a different cash benefit instead.
    I now come to Amendment No. 256, which is the last in this group. New Section 80H(i) specifies the grounds on which an employee may complain to a tribunal if he is refused a variation in his contract. Paragraph (b) gives as one of the grounds that:
    "a decision by his employer was based on incorrect facts".
    CWH 528
    Amendment No. 256 proposes that the ground should be more specific and stipulate that there was a materially incorrect error. We cannot have applications to the tribunal made and granted by the tribunal—as it would be bound to do—simply because the employer had made some trivial, unimportant and irrelevant error. Again, it is difficult to cite a possible example of what error could occur among the nine reasons specified in paragraph (b). It is, however, clear that a small clerical error or factual error could occur in the employer's reasons which in no way would have influenced his decision and cases should not he decided by the tribunal being farced to ignore that lack of materiality. I beg to move.
    4 p.m.
    Baroness Turner of Camden: I wonder whether I might put a question to the noble Baroness. She referred to flexi-time, a system with which I have some familiarity, as she clearly has also. I wonder why the noble Baroness introduced that and why she believes, as she apparently does, that flexi-time working is in any way incompatible with the provisions set out in the Bill. I do not understand why she raised that point.
    Baroness Miller of Hendon: I referred to it only in the context of Amendment No. 233 that I moved earlier which I said I had spoken to in general terms.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The grouping of the majority of the noble Baroness's amendments together in a single debate gives me the opportunity to say some general words on the clause, as she has done, and to mention two changes we wish to make to the clause on Report. I shall then go on to deal with the issues she has raised in moving the amendments themselves.
    I make one general point in answer to the opening remarks of the noble Baroness. The measure does not give anyone the right to choose his terms and conditions of employment. It gives him the right to ask to have his terms and conditions of employment changed. It also specifies the procedure that employers have to follow when considering requests and the acceptable business grounds for refusing a request. That is very different from saying that people have the right to change their terms and conditions of employment at will.
    For the first time the law will facilitate a dialogue between parents and their employers about working patterns that better meet parents' childcare responsibilities and their employers' needs. It will help remove the stresses parents face in both raising their children and in meeting their work responsibilities.
    The Government consulted widely on the issue of flexible working. Throughout the consultation period for the Green Paper, Work and Parents, Competitiveness and Choice, flexible working was identified as the biggest issue for both employers and employees.
    Last summer the Government established the Work and Parents Taskforce to look at how to meet parents' desire for more flexible work patterns in a way that is compatible with business efficiency. The task force

    CWH 229
    consulted widely on how this should be done. Its recommendations have been well documented during Committee stage in the other place. It is worth repeating, however, that key to the task force's terms of reference was the commitment to build on best practice, and to design a light-touch legislative approach to giving parents of young children a right to make a request to work flexible hours and to have this request considered by the employer. I strongly believe that the task force recommendations achieve this and represent a sound workable approach that is acceptable to both employers and employees.
    By reaching a full consensus of opinion, the task force presented the Government with an opportunity to facilitate a genuine culture change at the workplace to the benefit of employers, parents and their children. That is why we accepted all of its recommendations either in full or in principle. It is also why we have kept as close to its recommendations as possible when translating them into legislation, an approach that we will continue to adopt in the drafting of the accompanying regulations. Among others, the TUC and CBI both welcomed the task force recommendations.
    Before I turn to the specific points covered in the amendments, I wish to take the opportunity to inform the Committee of two amendments to the clause that the Government intend to table for Report stage.
    The clause as currently drafted applies to the Armed Forces. All members of the Armed Forces are liable to be deployed operationally at little or no notice if national interests require it. These unique features of Armed Forces life make it difficult to apply long-term flexible working arrangements as envisaged in this new right to request flexible working. For these specific and unique reasons it is the Government's intention to table an amendment to exempt the Armed Forces from the provisions of this clause when the Bill is considered at Report stage.
    I should add that the Armed Forces will continue to seek to comply with the spirit of the legislation, subject always to overriding operational requirements. They fully recognise the benefits of flexible working to individuals and to their organisations.
    Our second proposed amendment concerns ACAS. The main priority of the flexible working provisions is to foster dialogue between parents and employers in order to find a flexible working pattern to suit them both. As part of this commitment, it has always been the intention to follow the Work and Parents Taskforce proposal of extending the binding arbitration scheme prepared by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to deal with disputes regarding requests for flexible working which cannot be resolved in the workplace.
    The extension of the scheme will also allow us to ensure that as few cases as possible end up at the employment tribunal. Because the arbitration is binding, those who opt to use the scheme also waive their right to have their case heard at tribunal.
    CWH 530
    However, an amendment is required to ensure that it is possible to extend this scheme. Again, we intend to introduce this amendment at Report stage.
    I will now address the specific points raised in the amendments that the noble Baroness has tabled. Amendment No. 239 would prevent homeworking from being included within the new right. Specifically the clause allows for eligible parents to request a flexible working arrangement that is a change to, first, the hours they are required to work; secondly, the times when they are required to work; and thirdly, where, as between their homes and places of business of their employer, they are required to work, that is homeworking. There is also a regulatory power to add other changes to an employee's terms and conditions if appropriate circumstances arise, which Amendment No. 240 addresses.
    Homeworking is a well-recognised form of flexible working and, with development in technology, is a practice used to good effect by many employers. It need not be worked on a full-time basis. An employee may divide their time between the usual place of work and home.
    The amendment would therefore prevent many parents from being able to request to work from home to help them better balance their work and family lives. It would not be sensible to have a clause on flexible working and then to exclude homeworking.
    Amendment No. 240 would see the grounds on which an employee could apply for a change in working pattern restricted solely to those set out in the clause. This is clearly inappropriate.
    The purpose of new Section 80F(1)(a)(iv) is to ensure that as new flexible working practices develop they can be included within this clause. The subsection achieves this by giving the Secretary of State a regulatory power to specify additional criteria to define flexible working patterns as they develop.
    The noble Baroness asked for examples to be given. One example would be the content of work, but this is always rather an irrelevant consideration because, when one puts in a clause to take account of future events, almost by definition one does not know what they will be. It is rather like asking scientists what the results of their research will be. If one knows what the results will be, it is no longer research. If one wants an example, however, it could be the content of work.
    Working patterns have changed immeasurably over the past few decades. Due to technological advances we now see many people working from home. Changes in consumer demand now see retail businesses open, in some cases, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
    It is impossible to say how things may change in coming years. If we were to restrict the power from the outset and cater for today's flexible working patterns with no scope to accommodate new flexible working patterns as they develop, it would certainly prevent us from being able to cater for the needs of families and employers in the future.
    Amendment No. 241 will require an application to work flexibly to be in writing. As I have already indicated, it is the Government's intention to follow

    CWH 531
    the Work and Parents Taskforce recommendations as closely as possible. This includes its proposal to require applications to work flexibly to be in writing.
    Members of the Committee will see that new Section 80F(5) provides the Secretary of State with a regulatory making power to prescribe the form of applications to work flexibly. I can therefore assure the Committee that it is the intention that regulations will provide for applications to be made in writing, either manually or electronically.
    I should like to add that it is equally important that employers' decisions about an application or their decisions on an appeal are also made in writing. We will therefore be using the regulatory powers provided in the clause to ensure that the "in writing" requirement applies at these stages also.
    Amendment No. 242 would require employees to specify the reason why they require changes to their working patterns other than simply certifying that it is for the purpose of caring for a child. It would require a parent to explain their personal circumstances to their employer. We think that this is inappropriate and over burdensome.
    The Government tasked the Work and Parents Taskforce with designing a light-touch process which balanced the rights and responsibilities of both parents and employers.
    The introduction of another layer of explanation would require parents to explain their personal circumstances to employers. While I am sure that some of them will do so voluntarily, the task force looked at this in detail and decided unanimously that such extra questioning was unnecessary. In addition, during the consultation on the introduction of paternity leave, employers were asked whether fathers should be requested to prove that they were taking leave for the purpose of caring for a child.
    Employers made it clear that they did not want to go into the detail of their employees' personal circumstances. For example, parents might have to reveal relationship difficulties with their partner or reveal that a sister who had been caring for their children was now moving away. What value can that possibly add to the employers' consideration of the case on business grounds?
    Amendments Nos. 243, 244 and 246 all concern the eligibility criteria for making an application to work flexibly. Amendment No. 243 would make it absolutely clear that, where a flexible working pattern was agreed, it would be a permanent change to an employee's terms and conditions. An employee would have no automatic right to revert to his previous pattern of work should he desire to do so at a later stage.
    I can assure Members of the Committee that that is the effect of the legislation as it is presently drafted and that there is no need for the amendment. The first line of new Section 80F(1) states that:
    "A qualifying employee may apply to his employer for a change in his terms and conditions of employment".
    CWH 532
    It is clearly implied that there is no right to return to the previous working pattern. The guidance that will accompany the legislation will also make that point. Once a change is made, it will be permanent unless the parties agree otherwise at the time of negotiating the change or until another application is made at least 12 months later.
    That was the recommended approach of the Work and Parents Taskforce, which found that, having taken the trouble to implement a flexible working pattern, there was little desire among employers to unpick the arrangement. In addition, it was likely to be difficult to do so. For example, a new employee might need to be recruited to cover the parent's absence. If the flexible working arrangement was to come to an end, perhaps several years later, the employer would then also have to consider the impact of the change on the individual recruited to cover the parent's absence.
    However, there will be circumstances where, although an employer cannot agree to a request as presented to him, he will be able to do so if certain additional conditions apply; that is, time-limiting the flexible working pattern. The meeting between both parties will provide the opportunity to explore alternatives to find a solution that is acceptable to both parties. In circumstances where an alternative approach has been found that is agreeable to both parties, it will be essential that the employer's letter confirming his decision sets out the basis on which the application is agreed.
    Amendment No. 244 seeks to place the qualifying period of 26 weeks' continuous employment in the primary legislation. The noble Baroness asked us to say what we have in mind. Again, I assure the Committee that it is the Government's intention to keep to the Work and Parents Taskforce recommendations and limit the right to apply for flexible working to employees who have been employed for a continuous period of 26 weeks. That will be achieved by using the regulatory power provided for at new Section 80F(8)(a)(i). This period will be consistent with the qualifying periods for adoption leave and paternity leave, which are also being implemented through the Bill.
    It is inappropriate to take the approach of setting the period in regulations rather than the approach suggested in the amendment. It ensures the long-term flexibility of the legislation should there ever be a case for amending the qualifying period, whether up or down.
    The purpose of Amendment No. 246, which the noble Baroness wishes to add to the end of new Section 80F, is to limit the number of requests that a parent may make to one a year, irrespective of the number of children that he or she may have. As the noble Baroness has already pointed out, subsection (4) of new Section 80F already covers that point. Section 80F(4) reads:
    "If an employee has made an application under this section, he may not make a further application under this section to the same employer before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the date on which the previous application was made".

    CWH 533
    Those words seem plain and unambiguous. I reassure the noble Baroness that the text of new Section 80F(4) has been drafted to ensure the limit is not affected by the number of children a parent may have. Whether a parent has one child or four, they will be able to make only one request a year.
    The Work and Parents Taskforce went to a great deal of effort to find a test that could be agreed by all sides. The consensus, reached after much debate, was that it is not appropriate to ask the tribunal to second-guess fine business judgments that are made by employers in the light of day-to-day business conditions. The task force decided that decisions on whether a particular flexible working pattern could be accommodated within their business must be left to employers to make and justify.
    The effect of Amendment No. 247 would be to introduce a test of reasonableness against the grounds chosen by the employer to refuse a request. This would open up to question whether the employers' decision was or was not reasonable in the light of the circumstances. Whether such a test is necessary is something that the Government will look at when they review this flexible working provision three years after it comes into force. I do not believe that it is right to consider introducing an additional reasonableness test now, when the task force concluded that the legislation, at this initial stage, would work without it.
    Employers were concerned that their reasons for declining a request should not be open to examination by a tribunal. Where an employer is unable to accept a request, he will have to specify a sound business ground. To ensure that the business ground is acceptable, it must be one of those provided under new Section 80G(1)(b)of the clause. In addition, when confirming their decision in their letter to the employee, they must also provide a sufficient explanation of why the business ground applies in the circumstances. The role of the tribunal will be to ensure that the procedure has been correctly followed, that a clear business ground has been provided and to consider any disputed facts provided in the rationale to explain why the business ground applies. It will not have a power to suggest that another business ground would be more appropriate.
    Amendments Nos. 248 to 251 relate to the business grounds on which an employer may refuse a request and which are specified in new Section 80G(1)(b).
    Amendment No. 248 would result in the business ground of,
    "the burden of additional costs",
    being replaced with "material additional costs". The use of the phrase, "the burden of additional costs" is quite self-explanatory and I cannot see the value in what the suggested amendment would add.
    It is important to lay the emphasis on the "burden" of additional costs to the employer. Any request will incur a cost in management time alone. However, just because there is a cost should not automatically provide a reason for refusing a case.
    CWH 534
    The relative value of implementing a request is also likely to vary between large and small employers. Large employers are likely to have greater flexibility to accommodate a request and thus minimise the cost. That may not be so for a small employer handling a similar request. The use of the word "burden" ensures that those circumstances are covered.
    Equally, I struggle to see what can be gained by replacing the word "staff" with "employees" in the business reason of the,
    "inability to re-organise work among existing staff".
    If we use the word "employee", that will lead to additional work for employers and maybe even some degree of confusion, as they will need to distinguish who among their staff has employee status within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act, where "employee" is used to refer to those individuals who have a contract of employment and those who do not.
    By referring to "staff' in the legislation, one ensures that all the individuals working for a business are taken into account when an employer considers a request for flexible work. The use of the word "staff" will, for example, encompass contractors—whether self-employed or not—consultants and agency workers, to name but a few. These would not be taken into account if the business grounds referred merely to "employees".
    It is possible that the majority of the workforce of a business or one of its departments have worker status. It would not be fair towards the employee making the request to exclude those individuals from the count.
    The same arguments apply to Amendment No. 250, which would change the ground,
    "inability to recruit additional staff",
    to,
    "inability to recruit additional employees of similar capability on similar terms and conditions".
    The word "staff" avoids the dangers I previously explained about using "employees".
    Neither do I think that it is appropriate to say that the person should be replaced by someone employed on similar terms and conditions. For example, if a manager applies to leave one hour earlier each day to pick up his child from school and he does two hours of administration a day, the employer may decide to get an administrative assistant in for one hour each day to cover the manager's absence.
    I am also not convinced that adding "incompatibility with" to the business reason. "planned structural changes" provides any added value. This is clearly implied, because an employer is never to decline a request on the basis that a flexible working pattern is compatible with a planned structural change.
    Amendment No. 253 would give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to allow the employer to be accompanied to a meeting with an employee to discuss flexible working by an official or representative of an organisation of which the employer is a member.

    CWH 535
    This right could be exercised only where the employee has exercised his right to be accompanied to the meeting.
    The idea that the Government should make regulations to tell an employer that they could invite someone to a meeting organised by them is an interesting proposition because the idea that they could not to do so is a breach of human rights legislation. Also, while tempting, it is not one that I believe the Government should pursue.
    We have to make regulations about who may accompany employees to such meetings because experience teaches us that employers may seek to exclude individuals external to their own operation—or even internal—from meetings of this kind.
    There is no need to do the same for employers. If an employer wants to invite a representative of their local chamber of commerce, of the Federation of Small Businesses or the CBI, for example, to a meeting organised by him, on his premises, there is nothing in the Bill to stop him from doing so.
    Has the noble Baroness thought about what should happen in the circumstances in which the employee chooses not to be represented? The effect of this amendment would prevent employers from having the option of inviting someone of their choice in such circumstances—at least, not without the consent of the employee. I do not believe that that would be helpful to employers or that it is what the noble Baroness intends.
    Amendment No. 254 would enable an employer to reduce the benefits paid to an employee if they reduce their working hours. The benefit would be reduced pro rata to the hours worked or, if the benefit cannot be divided, it could be replaced by a cash payment that is equivalent to the value of the benefits before the hours were reduced.
    The task force recognised that if hours are reduced, pay and other benefits are likely to need to be reduced, too. It is much more straightforward to reduce pay. As we found in earlier sittings, defining—let alone dividing—a benefit can be much more difficult. However, employers already do that. The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 require that part-time workers cannot be treated less favourably than a full-time worker as regards the terms of his contract. Under these regulations, employers are already used to making contractual rights available to those working fewer hours than full-timers on a pro-rata basis. Where they cannot "pro rata" a benefit, the regulations do not prevent the employer, if they wish, to offering payment in lieu.
    The consequences of changes in the employee's terms will be provided for, expressly or by implication, in the employee's contract. If a contract provides a rate of pay per hour, obviously less will be due if fewer hours are worked. If a contract provides for benefits if particular criteria are met, what will have to be determined is whether the employee's new terms are consistent with the criteria.
    CWH 536
    There is nothing in law, therefore, that stops an employer doing what the amendment seeks to give him permission to do. This is clearly something that needs to be stressed in any guidance that is offered on the legislation. I can undertake that we will make sure that that is done.
    Amendments Nos. 255 and 256 are extremely similar. They concern the same line of text within the clause. Amendment No. 255 differs from Amendment No. 256 because it adds of a couple of extra words. The noble Baroness asked that Amendment No. 255 should be debated separately while Amendment No. 256 should be included within this grouping. My following comments on Amendment No. 256 will apply equally to Amendment No. 255.
    Amendment No. 256, like Amendment No. 255, would add the word "materially" to the provision. The basis of the employee's challenge of the rejection of their application for flexible working would therefore be on materially incorrect facts.
    The amendments have to be looked at against the background of the recognition by the Work and Parents Taskforce that all efforts should be made to resolve a disputed request at the workplace. Dialogue between both parties, for instance, is encouraged throughout the procedure that the employee must follow when considering a request. This approach is continued at appeal, which provides a further opportunity to see whether a solution can he found that is acceptable to both parties.
    Hence, an employee will only be able to take his or her case to a tribunal where the employer has failed to follow the procedure correctly or, having followed the procedure, the facts on which the employer has made his decisions are disputed.
    In any event, the provision as currently drafted delivers what the taskforce wants, and what I believe the noble Baroness wants too. If the employer has based his decision, as the provisions say, on incorrect facts, we are entitled to let the employee conclude without further thought that the facts are material to that decision. To add the word "materially" would simply add unnecessary uncertainty.
    Equally, it is fair to say that if an incorrect fact led the employer to refuse a decision, it can be assumed that it was substantial to the decision made. To include the word "substantially" also adds unnecessary confusion.
    The initial hearing, the employer's explanation of the business grounds on which he has based his decision and the appeal meeting should have provided adequate opportunity to make clear to the employee the facts on which the employer based his decision . To subject any of these facts to further tests would be unnecessary. How can any of these facts not be material to the decision or substantial to the basis for the decision?
    This new right of flexibility will encourage both parties to consider flexible working patterns that suit them both. The mechanism provided here will enable employers and parents to begin to explore solutions together. The approach is based on existing best

    CWH 537
    practice, promotes dialogue throughout the process, and encourages both parties to think about alternative solutions. They will contribute to increased productivity and help to make working parents' lives easier and benefit their children.
    In the light of the background and explanations that I have provided to the areas where amendments have been tabled, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord McCarthy: Perhaps I may ask the Minister some questions which came to me when he announced that he intends move an amendment on Report to take the Armed Forces out of the effect of Clause 47.
    First, I wonder how they got in there and why they are coming out now. Did they get in there because the flexible working and the Work and Parents Taskforce suggested that they should be included in there? If so, have the Government been back to the task force and asked it whether it thinks they ought to come out?
    Secondly, it was not really explained, which may be difficult or embarrassing, why the Armed Forces are in some way covered. Is it that they might end up in employment tribunals asking for sanctions, which is something they could not normally do? Is that what it is about? In which case, why did the provision go in in the first place? And if it is to be taken out, what is the parallel procedure? The Minister said something, which I did not quite follow, about there being something which would not be on the face of the Bill but it would be somewhere in practice in relation to the Armed Forces. What would that be like and what would the sanctions be in that case?
    Finally, is this merely an exclusion of the Armed Forces themselves? What about all the civilians who work for the Armed Forces—will they be excluded too? Those are the questions that come to my mind.
    4.30 p.m.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Perhaps I may deal with those points first. The Work and Parents Taskforce report recommended that the right to request flexible working should apply as universally as possible, and that approach has been taken. This amendment has been seen to come subsequently because the Armed Forces work under unique conditions. It is right that the Government should recognise this.
    We were not able to make the amendment any sooner, because we wanted to ensure that no other options were available. The task force has been told about the Armed Forces exemption and has raised no concerns about it.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend leaves the clause, can he say something about the other of his most important announcements as to what the Government intend to do in amending the clause? I refer to his announcement of the extension of the arbitration scheme which ACAS was required to draw up and which has been in existence for some time now, which entails, where the parties opt for it, the exclusion of a right of access to employment tribunals.
    CWH 538
    Now, plainly, he and his advisers must have looked with great care into this extension, so important is the scheme. Can the Minister tell us what grounds there are for having confidence in the scheme so far to the extent of extending it to this area? How many employers and employees have opted for the scheme so far and is it not the case that very little confidence has been generated in the scheme with its exclusion of right of access to tribunals? Of course he may say that there is a limit to the time in which it has been in existence, but the time has been sufficient, surely, to make a judgment. What were the grounds for the Government thinking that success had been sufficient to extend it?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The simple answer is that there have been only 14 cases so far. There has been limited take up and it is probably too early to assess the success or otherwise of the scheme. Equally, it gives people another area of choice and it is difficult to see why they should not have that additional choice included here.
    Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister did very well in following my long list of 15 amendments—in fact better than I did. Listening to his answers, I got lost somewhere in the middle. Therefore, I think that the best thing for me to do is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment and read carefully what the Minister said in Hansard tomorrow.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 240 to 251 not moved.]
    Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 252:
    Page 53, line 30, leave out from "a" to end of line 31 and insert "fellow employee or a representative of a recognised trade union"
    The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 252 seeks to alter paragraph (k) of the list of 14 items that the Secretary of State is to include in regulations about the employer's duties in relation to an application to vary the employee's contract.
    Subsection (2) begins with the preamble:
    "Regulations under subsection (1)(a) shall include",
    and then,
    "(a) provision for the holding of a meeting between the employer and the employee",
    and,
    "(g) provision for the holding…of a meeting between the employer and employee to discuss the appeal"
    from a decision of the employer. Paragraph (k), which the amendment seeks to amend, requires, not merely permits, the Secretary of State to include in the regulations:
    "for the employee to have the right to be accompanied at meetings under paragraph (a) and (g) by a person of such description as the regulations may specify".
    It is the words,
    "person of such description as the regulations may specify"
    that I wish to see removed and replaced by,
    "a fellow employee or the representative of a recognised trade union".
    I have two questions for the Minister.

    CWH 539
    First, apart from a fellow employee or a trade union representative, who does the Secretary of State consider that she might wish to specify in these regulations? If there is some other category, there is no reason why that should not be specified clearly in the Act.
    Before the Minister tells us that the paragraph is intended simply to give flexibility, I come to my second question. Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 describes, according to the marginal note, the employee's right to be accompanied at disciplinary or grievance proceedings. Subsections (2) and (3) of that section state that the employer must permit the worker to be accompanied at the hearing by a single person, chosen by the worker, who is:
    "employed by a trade union of which he is an official within the meaning of sections 1 and 119 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992…[or is] an official of a trade union…whom the union has reasonably certified in writing as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker's companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or [is]…aother of the employer's workers".
    Those are the Government's words as set out in their own Act passed three years ago. The Minister may intend to use the epithets "specifically", "prescriptively", "inflexibly" or another such word in relation to any amendments that I propose that are intended to tie down the Government to a specific course of action sanctioned by primary legislation and not by ministerial decree.
    My second question is: if it was good enough for the former Secretary of State to specify in the 1999 Act the qualifications of the employee's companion at a proceedings, why will the present Secretary of State not do so in the present Bill?
    I have a third supplementary question for the Minister. If the Secretary of State is seriously contemplating at present or possibly in the future any difference from the 1999 Act's description of who the employee's representative should be when he attends such proceedings, what possible advantage is there in making such a change? Indeed, what justification is there in creating a possible inconsistency between the two Acts? That matter causes me some concern. I beg to move.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment would limit the people who can accompany the applicant at relevant meetings with the employer to a fellow employee or a representative of a recognised trade union. Basically, we have followed the task-force approach in relation to this matter. The task force considered it important that employees, who may be at a disadvantage in discussions about their application to work flexibly, should have the right to be accompanied if they wished.
    Because flexible working is a relatively new area, the task force did not want unduly to limit the people who could accompany the parent making the request. The noble Baroness asked who else might be invited to come along. The parent, for example, might know someone who has expertise to accommodate flexible
    CWH 540
    working in innovative ways and who might he able to make a real difference to the consideration of a case for flexible working.
    That is why the task force suggested in its report that parents should have the right to be accompanied by,
    "a fellow employee, friend or recognised trade union representative".
    In those circumstances, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to ask to bring along a friend. I would be the first to admit that as it is different from the right to be accompanied in disciplinary or grievance hearings under the Employment Relations Act 1999. Indeed, I take the noble Baroness's point that it might cause some confusion.
    Equally, I fully understand why the task force was trying to find a wider formula to encompass the type of expertise that I have already mentioned. In addition, the discussions under these new provisions are manifestly not disciplinary or grievance hearings. That is why one cannot make an exact comparison with the Employment Relations Act 1999.
    In the light of that, the Government consider- that the best route is to set out in draft regulations who should be allowed to accompany the parent. That would allow further consultation to take place. I intend the consultation to be wide in order to allow the issues of consistency versus wider expertise to he explored fully. I hope that that explanation provides a good reason as to why the amendment is unnecessary.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend sits down, or if he is still in semi-levitation, perhaps I may ask him whether I heard him aright. He said that the regulations will allow a friend to accompany the applicant. In these parental considerations, that is very understandable. But did I understand him to say that they will be limited to representatives of recognised trade unions? That, of course, is not the case in relation to Section 10. The amendment would impose a new limitation which, apart from CAC procedures of recognition, would give the employer a veto by refusing recognition to particular trade unions. Section 10 does not allow for that. Perhaps I heard him wrongly. Did he say that?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No, I should have made it clear that I was quoting from the task force. It suggested in its report that parents should have the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee, friend or recognised trade union representative. However, that is what the task force said; it is not a statement of what will be in the regulations.
    Baroness Turner of Camden: Am I right in assuming that a "recognised trade union representative" is not necessarily the same as a "representative of a recognised trade union"? There can be situations in which a union is busy organising the staff and has not yet been recognised. However, if the representative himself is recognised from the union, that is different from being from a recognised trade union. Is that right?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am sure such points will be taken account of in the drafting of the regulations.

    CWH 541
    I was not commenting on that point. I was commenting on the question of other people being allowed to come in.
    Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 not moved.]
    Baroness Miller of Hendonhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 255:
    Page 54, line 9, leave out "based on" and insert "substantially based on materially"
    The noble Baroness said: The Minister spoke to Amendment No. 255 in the large group of amendments. Under the circumstances, I shall not move it.
    [Amendment No. 255 not moved.]
    [Amendment No. 256 not moved.]
    Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 257:
    Page 54, line 35, at end insert—
    "( ) If a complaint is made to an employment tribunal and the complaint is held to be not well founded it shall be conclusively presumed that the refusal to vary the terms is not a breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65)."
    The noble Baroness said: The amendment is designed to incorporate a fundamental principle of law that applies in most countries. In Latin, the principle is resjudicata the matter had been adjudicated upon. In other words, there cannot be a second trial on substantially the same facts. This amendment is also designed to prevent what is called "forum shopping". If someone loses a case before one set of adjudicators on one set of grounds, she cannot be allowed a second bite of the cherry by taking the same facts to another tribunal on another alleged ground.
    The amendment does not involve merely a matter of political difference between the Government and the Opposition. It simply involves a matter of whether the long-standing law of the land is to apply to the new legal system that began in the late 1940s with the rent tribunals and is now gradually evolving as the number and functions of tribunals increase in place of, or as a complement to, the regular civil courts. I beg to move.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The noble Baroness is suggesting that if a parent is unsuccessful in taking their case to tribunal under this right, any claim made that is under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 will be presumed to be ill founded. That is surprising because the clause sets out a new right that is completely separate to the Sex Discrimination Act. We really should not confuse them.
    It may be helpful if I explain how an application is to be considered by an employer. When an employer receives a request, they will have to follow the procedure that is outlined in the legislation. That procedure is designed to promote a positive dialogue between both parties to help them identify a flexible working pattern that suits them both. If the employer
    CWH 542
    is unable to accept an application, they will have to ensure that they have a sound business reason for refusing the application and explain why it applies in the circumstances. For clarity to both parties, those business grounds are set out in the legislation.
    An employment tribunal will verify that the procedure has been followed correctly and that an acceptable business ground has been given as a reason for declining the request. It will also check any disputed fact on which the business reason has been based. The tribunal will have a general power to question the employer's actual judgment.
    That test, under the right to apply for flexible working, is very different from the much more onerous test of objective justification, which is used in the Sex Discrimination Act. Under the sex discrimination test, a tribunal can question the employer's reasoning.
    As I hope I have now made clear, the two tests are different and there is an extremely important reason why the link that the noble Baroness proposes should not be pursued. Sadly, experience shows that some employers continue to discriminate on the basis of sex. It may be that an employer is able to comply with the procedure under the right to request and provide a business ground but still reach their decision on a discriminatory basis. For example, an employer may decide that he will refuse all requests from men irrespective of the strength of their case and ensure that he is able to show that he has not acted in breach of the right to request. However, the employee will still be able to bring a successful sex discrimination claim if he can show that the employer made a decision on a discriminatory basis.
    If an employer sexually discriminates against any employee, whether directly or indirectly, it is absolutely right that they should suffer the penalties that are provided for in the Sex Discrimination Act.
    I should add that there is another reason why this amendment is unworkable. Individuals often bring two different claims which emanate from the same facts together—indeed, the tribunal also has power to join them. It will therefore be possible to bring claims under both this right and sex discrimination legislation at the same time.
    To accommodate the amendment, additional provisions would have to be made to ensure that the decision on the "right to request" claim was made before the sex discrimination claim decision or the amendment would have no effect. That would lead to the absurd and unjust situation whereby a tribunal could hear evidence of blatant discrimination and has to make a decision that there was no discrimination only because the right to request had not been breached. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
    Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his clear reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.45 p.m.
    [Amendments Nos. 258 and 259 not moved.]
    Clause 47 agreed to.
    Clause 48 [Rate of maternity allowance]:
    [Amendment No. 260 not moved.]
    Clause 48 agreed to.
    Clause 49 [Work focused interviews for partners]:
    Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 261:
    Page 56, line 31, at end insert "in relation to jobs which are suitable for that person"
    The noble Baroness said: We now come to Clause 49. This section of the Bill contains a requirement for a partner to attend what is known as a work-focused interview. As I understand it, the Bill will give Jobcentre staff full discretion in deciding whether or not a partner should attend for such an interview. I am concerned that that could result in people being called in for interview in inappropriate circumstances, despite what is said in the Explanatory Notes.
    The range of benefits within the clause not only includes income support and jobseeker's allowance but also incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and invalid care allowance. That suggests that some partners of people in receipt of benefits as carers and as disabled people will be expected to attend for an interview or face possible loss of benefit. Women at home with children may come under pressure at an interview, which in itself could be difficult to attend.
    An assumption that an unemployed partner could look after children might not be correct. NACAB has expressed some concern about the proposals. It says that the current administration of sanctions against people who fail to attend a training course or take a job raises doubts about what would happen in practice. It has given me a number of examples of what has happened in the implementation of those regulations.
    It is true that the Explanatory Notes specifically state that the interviews will concentrate on job potential and provide the partner with access to a wide range of help and information on work, benefits and services, such as child care. It states that it is intended to encourage partners towards labour market participation. However, any action that they may choose to take beyond taking part in the interview is claimed to be entirely voluntary. However, the mere fact of having to attend an interview, with the possible loss of benefits as a threat in the background should the interview not be attended, may of itself bring pressure on an individual. It could also lead to assumed pressure being placed on an individual to accept employment that is not suitable to background training or general circumstances. Our amendment seeks to deal with that.
    This is a probing amendment and I would welcome the Minister's reaction. It seems that the officials who will be responsible for implementing this section of the Bill will need to have careful and sensitive training because they will be dealing in the main with people
    CWH 544
    who are extremely vulnerable. After all, the better off do not generally have to be involved with any aspect of social security. I beg to move.
    Baroness Miller of Hendon: At Second Reading f did not like this clause. I thought that the idea of making partners come for interviews—especially as it appears as though they are not forced to take a job—appears to put pressure on them beforehand. It was totally unnecessary and I am amazed with myself that I did not bring back an amendment. The noble Baroness's amendment certainly makes it better, but that does not mean that I like the clause any more.
    Lord Sharman: I, too, do not like the clause. I have tabled Amendment No. 262 but I support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said about what is wrong with the clause. I seek the same clarifications.
    Lord McCarthy: Where is the pressure intended to be placed? Presumably, the partner is being brought along to the interview because it helps to put pressure on one of them or both of them to go out and get a job. Is the pressure on the claimant of benefit, on the partner of the claimant or on both of them? If the pressure is on either of them, is there any research-based evidence that there is abuse?
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: I want to pick up that point. At the outset, my understanding is that the arrangement is not about putting pressure on either the claimant or their partner. Essentially, the measure is there to be helpful. In explaining the Government's thinking, I should be able to demonstrate that.
    The amendments will prevent partners of recipients of certain benefits from being required to take part in work-focused interviews, unless there are jobs that are suitable for them. That, in itself, is an important point on which to focus. Clearly, it is only right that in some circumstances—in most circumstances—one would hope that any work that was available for the partner would be suitable. It is of course important to be able to find out what that work might be.
    In essence, the amendment would mean that we would not be able to require partners to take part in interviews if there were no suitable jobs for them. Work-focused interviews support the Government's objective of promoting work as the best form of welfare, by providing everyone of working age with the opportunity of finding out about the help that is available to them to find work.
    The purpose of the interview is not simply to discuss specific jobs or to look at each job that might be available; it is to explore with the individual their potential for work and to advise them about the wide range of help and information on the benefits and services that are available to them to help them to get into work. It is there to assist, help, advise and guide them about what they might want to do in the future.
    The interview will provide a personal and tailored approach and it is intended to encourage partners to take steps towards labour market participation by

    CWH 545
    exploring ways in which they can overcome any barriers that might exist to prevent them from looking for work.
    I accept that, depending on their circumstances, some jobs may not be suitable for those individuals. We want to treat people as individuals and we do not want to restrict the jobs that may be considered suitable for any individual. That is precisely why the work-focused interview will be an opportunity for them to discuss the type of work that they may be able to do and learn about the help, services and benefits that are available to help them.
    The discussion—it will be a discussion—may well result in a person realising that their skills and experience mean that they may be able now, or perhaps at some point in the future, to do a wider range of jobs than was initially thought. For some partners, work may be entirely inappropriate at the time that they are required to attend the interview. However, they should not be written-off or cast out of the labour market. They may wish to work at some point in the future. The purpose of the interview is to keep them in touch with the world of work and the opportunities that it might provide for them.
    We believe that it is right that people take part in those interviews and are made aware of the help that is available so that they are aware of the options that are open to them at the time of the interview and at some future date. Whether or not partners are in a position to work, no other requirement will be placed upon them apart from taking part in the work—focused interview. Any action that a partner may choose to take beyond taking part in an interview—for example, finding work or joining a New Deal programme—will be entirely voluntary. Therefore, he will not be forced, cajoled or pushed into work. A partner who wishes to take up the offer of help to find a job will be asked to attend a further interview. That appears to make sense. It follows on if we are trying to advise and help, and we believe that it is right. It will provide time for people to concentrate on discussing specific jobs that might be suitable for the partner.
    I hope that Members of the Committee will be pleased to know that a system of safeguards will be built into the process to ensure that people do not lose benefit where the circumstances of the individual mean that the timing of the interview may not be beneficial or where the partner has no reasonable prospects of working. An adviser will be able to defer or waive a meeting where it would be inappropriate for a partner to have a discussion in particular circumstances or at a particular time.
    I do not believe that taking part in an interview is an onerous or unreasonable requirement. We are asking only that partners come to discuss their situations and their work aspirations with an adviser—that is, someone with expertise—so that they may be made aware of the practical and financial help that is on offer. There will be no absolute requirement to seek work under this measure.
    CWH 546
    That is the Government's intention and our reasoning for introducing the measure. I hope that it offers a large measure of reassurance. It is not seen as a coercive approach by the department; rather, it is a facilitative measure to enable and to help and to ensure that the partner is kept in touch with the world of work if that is what he or she wants. There is no pressure or inducement to that end. We are simply attempting to be helpful to the partner.
    Baroness Turner of Camden: Before the noble Lord sits down, he says that the measure is not intended to be coercive, but would people lose benefit? In particular, would a person in receipt of severe disablement allowance, which one receives only if one is severely disabled, lose benefit if he failed to show up for an interview? That is one of our concerns. People are likely to lose a whole list of benefits if they do not show up, and that is the pressure about which we are all concerned.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton: I take my noble friend's point. Ultimately, that sanction has existed in legislation for a long time but it must be borne in mind that it is very rarely used.
    Three opportunities are provided for attendance at an interview. The interview will not ultimately have to take place in an office. The adviser may well suggest that it takes place in the partner's home if that is more appropriate. The work-focused interview will be operated with extreme sensitivity. It is all about assistance and help. It is about keeping in touch with people and enabling them to make contact with the world of work, if that is what they want. It is not intended to bring heavy pressure or to try to force people off benefits in a coercive way into the world of work.
    It is worth adding that the sanction does not cover all benefit. It covers only 20 per cent of the single person rate, which amounts to approximately £10·79. Therefore, it is not as though the whole benefit will be taken away. It is a partial withdrawal and one that is used only very much as a last resort.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend departs from, with great respect, those very bad points, the fact that a sanction is bad is not reconciled for me by the fact that it is rarely used. That is irrelevant. If it is bad, it is bad. My noble friend said that the sanction would cover only about 20 per cent and not the whole benefit. But these are very vulnerable people.
    However, I want to congratulate my noble friend since this is perhaps the last major amendment that we shall debate. He deserves a prize because throughout this Grand Committee there has been a competition between my noble friends the Ministers and the Bill. My noble friends the Ministers have regularly proved that they are more sensitive, more civilised and more scrupulous than the Bill. Each time we have asked why something should not be put in the Bill, they have said, "That is not what we mean at all but, of course, we cannot put it in the Bill". I understood that Ministers are not allowed to do so but that they do not want that

    CWH 547
    to happen. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury will remember saying he did not want this kind of thing to happen. Also my noble friend in his exposition should receive a top prize, perhaps a trip around the world, or some suitable prize in the competition between the Ministers and the Bill.
    This is a serious point because in looking at Report the Government should pay more attention to their civilised Ministers than to their uncivilised draftsmen of the Bill. The Government should look at my noble friend's speech very carefully and see whether they cannot perhaps give an inkling in the clause that these vulnerable people will not feel that they were being pressured to take unsuitable jobs.
    My noble friend says they will not be pressed or coerced to take unsuitable jobs. I do not see even a hint of that in the Bill. It may be that those who administer this scheme are always sufficiently sensitive not to have that effect. I believe the history of social security administration does not show that we can be absolutely confident that that is always the case. Social security is something where individuals sometimes suffer from their vulnerability and feel coerced, and that will happen here in some cases.
    Some inkling of my noble friend's civilised approach should surely appear not just in regulations, of which we know not at this stage, but in the Bill itself. Let the Government pay heed to their Ministers and come back on Report with a number of amendments that the things Ministers have said they want can be at least suggested in the Bill.
    5 p.m.
    Baroness Turner of Camden: I noted what the Minister had to say and I am not at all happy about it. I still believe that the Bill as it stands contains a coercive element. It has been explained very clearly by my noble friend Lord. Wedderburn how my noble friends and I feel about this provision in the Bill. This is something to which we will certainly return on Report. I am not at all satisfied with the response that has been given this afternoon, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Sharmanmoved Amendment No. 262:
    Page 56, line 38, leave out paragraphs (c) to (e).
    The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment was very substantially the same as that of Amendment No. 261 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Having heard the debate and the Minister's reply—which left me, too, very dissatisfied—I wish to return to it on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 49 agreed to.
    Clause 50 agreed to.
    Schedule 6 agreed to.
    Clause 51 agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 262A not moved.]
    Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
    Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
    Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 263:
    Page 80, line 15, at end insert—
    "( ) In section 23(5), the words "or otherwise" are omitted."
    The noble Baroness said: In congratulating the Minister on what was happening in respect of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said that in his opinion that was the last major amendment which would be debated tonight. Although my amendment is very short, I believe it is very important. Indeed, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, might afterwards agree with me on that, even if he does not agree with the amendment.
    This small amendment would remove two totally redundant words from Section 23(5) of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The Government themselves are amending an earlier subsection in Section 23. Section 23 is entitled,
    "Power to confer rights on individuals",
    and subsection (5) states:
    "An order under this section may make provision in such way as the Secretary of State thinks fit, whether by amending Acts or instruments, or otherwise".
    The two words, "or otherwise", are the subject of this amendment.
    On 4th December 2001, at Question Time, I asked the Minister—I apologise for quoting myself:
    "Can the Minister tell the House what the word 'otherwise' means in this context? Does it mean that the Secretary of State would be able to bypass Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments?".—[Official Report, 4/12/01; col. 702.]
    In his reply, the Minister said,
    "I am sure that this point was debated at great length between the noble Baroness and myself—when the Bill passed through this House. However, I cannot remember exactly what 'otherwise' referred to",
    and he undertook to write to me on the subject.
    First, I congratulate the Minister on his usual frankness in admitting that he had no more idea of what "or otherwise" meant than I did. However, his researches into the debates in your Lordships' House and in the other place will have revealed, as did mine, that the topic was never raised. I will mention that again later. Secondly, I thank him for having honoured his promise to write to me to explain what "otherwise" meant.
    I would now like to read to the Committee the substantive part of his reply, which I quote verbatim so that Members of the Committee get the full flavour of it. He wrote:
    "The use of the words 'or otherwise' were:intended to ensure that an order made under section 23 could also apply rights to individuals by means of a 'free standing' provision rather than by an amendment".
    He continued:
    "This was simply to give the Secretary of State the flexibility to extend rights in the way that seemed best from a drafting point of view. The words do not extend her powers in any way".

    CWH 549
    Well, in so far as I can make head or tail of that reply, the Minister was saying that the words are to enable the Secretary of State to alter an Act of Parliament or a statutory instrument not by another Act of Parliament or by another piece of secondary legislation—so far as I know, those are the only two constitutional ways to amend the law—but by what he now euphemistically calls a free-standing provision. What on earth is "a free-standing provision"? What new legislative device have the Government invented to circumvent Parliament?
    Cutting through the jargon, it is perfectly clear that the words "or otherwise" mean that the Secretary of State is seeking the power to amend legislation by some means other than by primary or secondary legislation. In other words, the phrase "or otherwise" is either a piece of unnecessary verbosity or there is some significance in it. In so far as the words mean anything—despite the noble Lord's assurance to me that they do not extend the Secretary of State's power—I regret that I do not agree with him. If the Secretary of State can amend the legislation by an Act of Parliament or by statutory instrument, or otherwise, then "otherwise" has got to mean something. Perhaps it means that she could do so by stroke of the pen, by putting an announcement in the London Gazette or some other obscure local paper or even by sending out leaflets to be distributed by sandwich-board men parading along Whitehall.
    This is not a trivial matter. The provision, if left unaltered, would set a dangerous constitutional precedent that Parliament should not accept. I apologise for the fact that I did not pick up this point during the passage of the Employment Relations Act, but toiling alone as I do in this House, amidst a welter of never-ending DTI legislation, I certainly cannot catch everything that comes my way, but it is far better late than never. I beg to move.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: With all respect to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, which we take very seriously, the lengthy debate on this Bill is liable to end with a whimper rather than a bang on this basis. The measure is very simple. All it means is that you can introduce a new
    CWH 550
    regulation without having to amend another regulation—you can introduce a freestanding regulation without amending a regulation.
    The noble Baroness's amendment would simply take away the current flexibility for the Secretary of State to extend rights in a way that is best from a drafting point of view. I assure the Committee that the words currently used in the Bill do not extend the Secretary of State's power in any substantive way. On that basis I am unable to convince myself that this important point would materially improve the Bill and I ask the noble Baroness once again, and finally, to withdraw the amendment.
    Baroness Miller of Hendon: I do not know about once again and finally, I think that this is the first time that the Minister has asked me this evening. Does he mean to withdraw the amendment?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, to withdraw the amendment.
    Baroness Miller of Hendon: If the term "or otherwise" simply means another regulation to amend a regulation, that should be in a definition clause of what "or otherwise" means. However, it is not. It could be interpreted in any way that any Secretary of State chooses. The Minister referred to introducing another regulation. That should be on the face of the Bill, or there should be a definition of "or otherwise". Of course I have no choice but to withdraw the amendment, but I shall certainly look at it again and I hope that the Minister will also do so. We seem to have been having a nice little debate about this matter, but it is serious. I do not wish to leave those powers unfettered as it were in the hands of anybody to use in a way that might not be appropriate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule 7 agreed to. Clause 54 agreed to.
    Schedule 8 agreed to.
    Clause 55 agreed to.
    In the Title:
    [Amendment No. 264 not moved.]
    Bill reported with amendments.
    The Committee adjourned at fourteen minutes past five o'clock.

  Fairtrade Foundation
  Fairtrade Foundation
  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Nuisance Caused by Young People
  Nuisance Caused by Young People
  Biofuels: Excise Duty
  Biofuels: Excise Duty
  Scottish Parliament Building
  Scottish Parliament Building
  Privy Council Silver
  Privy Council Silver
  Gulf Veterans: Exposure to Organophosphates
  Gulf Veterans: Exposure to Organophosphates
  Gulf War: Depleted Uranium
  Gulf War: Depleted Uranium
  Manchester War Memorials
  Manchester War Memorials
  MoD: Equal Opportunities Surveys
  MoD: Equal Opportunities Surveys
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Fireworks: Depleted Uranium
  Fireworks: Depleted Uranium
  Homeless Families: Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Homeless Families: Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Sporting Events: Temporary Use Provisions
  Sporting Events: Temporary Use Provisions
  Aviation: Economic Impact
  Aviation: Economic Impact
  Pesticides Incidents Appraisal Panel
  Pesticides Incidents Appraisal Panel
  Safety on Roads: Warning Signs
  Safety on Roads: Warning Signs
  Railway Safety
  Railway Safety
  Merseyside Waterfront Development Plan
  Merseyside Waterfront Development Plan
  Witham: Advertising Hoardings
  Witham: Advertising Hoardings
  Green Ministers Cabinet Sub-Committee
  Green Ministers Cabinet Sub-Committee
  Maize: GM Farm Scale Trial
  Maize: GM Farm Scale Trial
  EU Meat Plants Exporting to the UK
  EU Meat Plants Exporting to the UK
  Lead Shot Legislation
  Lead Shot Legislation
  Emissions Trading Scheme
  Emissions Trading Scheme
  NHS Trusts: Ethical Decisions
  NHS Trusts: Ethical Decisions
  Northern Ireland: EU Support Programme
  Northern Ireland: EU Support Programme
  Northern Ireland: Victim Support
  Northern Ireland: Victim Support