Sitting of 16 December 2002

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

    Museums
    Syd Rapson: What effect free entry to national museums has had on attendances. [85568]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The first 12 months of full free entry have seen a 70 per cent. increase in attendances at DCMS-sponsored, formerly charging museums and galleries. We are carrying out a further analysis of the impact on each institution, which will be published shortly. This represents a promise made and a promise delivered by the Government, and millions of people are deriving the benefit.
    Syd Rapson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The Government should be congratulated on that phenomenal result. Two years ago, the Secretary of State commissioned a report by Dr. Alan Borg of the Victoria and Albert museum to consider whether Portsmouth's maritime heritage collection could be contained in a national museum. Given that Portsmouth has the Victory, the Warrior and the Mary Rose, along with the museum, it should have a national museum by now. Has any progress been made on that report?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and commend him on his continued support for those four very important visitor attractions and heritage sites in his constituency. He rightly refers to Alan Borg—a distinguished former director of the V and A, who looked at the relationship between the four museums in or near to my hon. Friend's constituency and proposed that their management would benefit from closer integration, which is why we propose to set up a company with a single chief executive to run the dockyard. There will be further meetings this week to
    516
    ensure that a rapid conclusion is reached on those arrangements, which will benefit my hon. Friend's constituents.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: I declare an interest as a director of HMS Warrior 1860, which is an unpaid position of which I am very proud. May I wish this project well and tell the Secretary of State that, if the unification of the facilities in the Portsmouth heritage area proceeds, account should also be taken of the other tourist attractions around Portsmouth harbour, because the essence of the millennium project is that people should be encouraged to use water transport and to visit all the attractions around the harbour?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, which certainly sounds eminently sensible, and I shall ensure that it is drawn to the attention of those who are engaged in the negotiations to which I referred.
    Mr. Tony Banks: It is really great to see so many people taking advantage of our wonderful museums and art galleries through free admission, but, of course, that means that those museums are looking around for additional funding as well, and the other part of the Government's policy is to ensure that they are properly funded. The national portrait gallery, with which I have my own connections, has an acquisition budget of only £305,000 in the current year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is pretty appalling for one of the premier collections of portraits in the world?
    Tessa Jowell: I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes, but the extremely successful outcome for all our national museums and galleries in the last spending round means that they will receive real-terms increases of 1.5 and 2.5 per cent. respectively in 2004–05 and 2005–06. Of course every museum and gallery in the country—whether regional or national—could benefit from more money, but we have now pulled back from the generation of underfunding that occurred under the previous Government, and I pay tribute to those museums and galleries that are considering other sources of funding, on top of the Government's very generous settlement.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Does the Secretary of State agree with the conclusion of the recent Select Committee report, which defined as opaque the present process of allocating funds to museums and galleries and concluded that, if funding decisions were totally dependent on Treasury fiat, either the Treasury must be involved round a table or the other parties should not waste each other's time? Can the Secretary of State be as candid with us as her ministerial colleague was about the Turner prize and admit that she has been wasting her time and that of the museums?
    Tessa Jowell: There is nothing conceptual about the business of allocating resources to our museums and galleries; it involves dealing with hard facts on the basis of the Treasury allocation, and the decisions are made by my Department and by me, in discussion with the heads of the museums and galleries, who broadly declared themselves to be very satisfied with the

    517
    allocations that they had secured. A very important part of the settlement was to ensure the continuation of the extremely successful policy of free entry.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: While welcoming the national free entry to museums scheme, does my hon. Friend agree that it leaves certain regional museums at a disadvantage, such as the Beamish museum in my constituency, and the Bowes museum at Bishop Auckland, both of which have collections of national significance? Will my right hon. Friend consider what support can be given to museums such as those, which have national collections but are at a clear disadvantage under the present scheme?
    Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend refers to two extremely successful and significant regional museums. He will be aware that we have announced, this year and over the three years of the next spending round, a settlement of £70 million to begin the regeneration and rebuilding of our regional museums and, specifically, to establish closer links between national museums and regional museums. That is all part of building our commitment to access to excellence wherever people live in the country.

    Churches and Church Halls (Licensing)
    Mr. John Randall: What estimate she has made of the costs that will be incurred by churches and church halls as a result of the provisions contained in the Licensing Bill. [85569]
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What representations she has received from church organisations concerning the Licensing Bill. [85572]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): Any costs for churches and church halls under the provisions of the Licensing Bill as it stands would depend on the licensable activities, if any, which are undertaken and their frequency, and whether temporary or permanent permissions are sought. The Archbishops Council of the Church of England wrote to me to express its concern that the provision of entertainment in churches outside Greater London would be brought under the licensing regime by the Licensing Bill. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will accept that while I cannot provide them with a solution today, the Government have made a commitment to reconsider our position on this issue and will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.
    Mr. Randall: I am very grateful to the Minister for seeing sense. The sooner we get the new regulations, the better, as that part of the legislation would best be described with the words that he used to describe certain types of modern art.
    Dr. Howells: I could not possibly comment.
    Mr. Boswell: We have the answer for which we were hoping. Would the Minister accept as representative the comments of my constituent, Mr. Williams, who is chairman of the trustees of the Holy Sepulchre restoration trust in Northampton? In particular,
    518
    he points out that the use of his church, which is an 11th century crusader round church, is as important to the schools that perform there as to the church which brings in the takings. Will the hon. Gentleman give us an absolute assurance—or as absolute an assurance as he can—that nine centuries of history are not going to be sacrificed to nine minutes of ministerial inadvertence?
    Dr. Howells: I will certainly do my utmost to ensure that that does not happen. If I may, however, I ask the hon. Gentleman to hold his fire until we have reconsidered our position on the matter.
    Alan Howarth: Can I—I think I can—congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on intervening to restore common sense and ensure that, in an uncharacteristic excess of bureaucratic zeal, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not wipe out the indispensable tradition of music-making in churches? Will they go further and impress on the Arts Council the need to support church and cathedral music positively, just as English Heritage has supported the conservation of the physical fabric of our churches and cathedrals?
    Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend has fought long and hard to help church and cathedral music wherever he can. I reassure him that I have no intention of doing it any harm whatever, and that I will do all that I can through regulation to ensure that it thrives.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: Having met a group of clergy in Blackpool on Friday, may I tell my hon. Friend how welcome were the words of Baroness Blackstone in another place on Thursday? Does he appreciate the extent to which many places of worship depend on the activities and income that come from such events, the licensing of which is now to be reviewed? Will his Department do everything that it can to make sure that a perfectly reasonable attempt to correct an existing licensing anomaly does not become an unfair and intolerable burden on places of worship?
    Dr. Howells: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I also thank him for the work that he has done to make my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me very much aware of the circumstances that obtain both in his constituency and in those of many other right hon. and hon. Members.
    Nick Harvey: Does the Minister agree that, in the absence of the guidance promised in the Bill, it is quite to hard to decipher the Department's intentions on church concerts or anything else? Do we need to license activities in church at all, given that there has not been a serious public order offence in a church since the time of Thomas à Becket? Does he accept that, even if he waived the fee, the application process would in any event be an unwelcome layer of bureaucracy for already hard-pressed volunteers?
    Dr. Howells: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point very well. I hope that he will accept the statement that I made earlier.
    Dr. Jack Cunningham: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed, not least in rural areas where churches and church halls sometimes provide the only facility in which cultural, educational and musical activities can take place? They are therefore an essential part of the fabric of rural communities for those as well as other purposes. Will he ensure that, when he reconsiders the matter, churches and church halls are finally completely exempted from the proposals?
    Dr. Howells: I get my right hon. Friend's message loud and clear. I shall certainly consider what he said.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: I welcome the Minister's statement as far as it goes, but does he accept that a Bill that will require anything up to 15,000 parish churches—not to mention the places of worship of other faiths—to apply for a licence at a not insignificant cost cannot possibly be described, as the Secretary of State has described it, as deregulatory, and that anything less than the continuation of the existing exemption and a complete abandonment of the proposals in the Bill will be unacceptable?
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that, for a long time, the Conservative Government had a chance to get rid of the rule that has existed for 40 years, which says that churches inside London have to apply for and receive a licence for the playing and singing of secular music. I hear what he says, but I hope that he will accept that we do not need lessons from the Conservative party on getting rid of the regulations.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I point out to the Minister that the existing exemption for churches was granted by Parliament in 1982, under the previous Conservative Government. However, given his willingness to see reason this afternoon, perhaps he would like to consider another aspect of the Licensing Bill, which is that covering licensing for the live performance of music. Will he explain how a Bill that will require thousands of live musicians to perform only in licensed venues, when there is at present no requirement for a licence, is deregulatory?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That goes far beyond the original question.

    Hotels and Tourist Accommodation
    Lawrie Quinn: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the voluntary schemes for standards in hotels and other tourist accommodation. [85570]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): The English Tourism Council research shows clear benefits in terms of higher occupancy levels for those establishments that participate in the national quality assurance schemes.
    520
    We want to improve their impact further and will shortly commission a review of accommodation quality as part of our tourism reform programme.
    Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work that Scarborough borough council has done to establish its own scheme, which feeds into the national scheme, should be regarded as an exemplar by many people around the country? If they met the high standards that exist on the Yorkshire coast, it would do the UK's tourism and hospitality industry an awful lot of good and would put us where we should be as a world leader.
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend can justifiably be proud of Scarborough's achievement. It won the 2002 England for Excellence award as the most improved resort. It has faced great difficulties over the past 30 years and has succeeded to a significant degree in reinventing itself as a first-class resort and as a great tourist attraction.
    Miss Anne Begg: Does my hon. Friend accept that booking hotel accommodation can be a bit of a lottery, as I found to my cost in Blackpool at the recent Labour party conference? Does he also accept that that lottery is made even more difficult when it comes to booking accommodation for people with a disability? Will he look into that specific aspect of regulation to ensure that guidance to hotels makes it clear that their advertisements should state whether they are wheelchair or disabled friendly?
    Dr. Howells: I have been very concerned that hotels and bed and breakfasts that advertise themselves as being disabled friendly or wheelchair compatible turn out not to be so or to be only partially so. That often means that people who have spent very good money on holidays are greatly disappointed when they do not get the facilities that they require. I know that the English Tourism Council has also been very concerned about that and we will take it forward as an important theme in the review of our support for tourism in this country.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Graham Allen: What visits have been made to Nottingham, North constituency by ministers to discuss funding for sport to divert youngsters from crime since 1997. [85573]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): There have been 18 visits by the Department's Ministers to Nottingham, North since 1997 to discuss sport. I shall send my hon. Friend a total list of those 18 visits.
    Mr. Allen: I know that the Minister for Sport is aware of the position of the Henry Mellish school, which hopes to come out of special measures and is the last school in the constituency to do so. It has problems in the local area with crime and hopes to divert youngsters from that by getting them involved in sport. Will my right hon. Friend give a fair wind to the new opportunities fund bid for a new £1 million sports hall so that we can use sport to divert those youngsters and youngsters outside school from activities that we do not want to

    521
    encourage them into? Will he also put a possible opening date in his diary so that he or his right hon. Friend can come up and do the honours?
    Mr. Caborn: I would love to give the bid a fair wind, but it is a matter for the new opportunities fund. I understand that congratulations are in order for the Henry Mellish school for passing the first stage of the new opportunities fund application. My hon. Friend knows that it is an arm's-length organisation and that it will make an objective assessment. The bid comes on the back of £750 million of investment in sports facilities through the new opportunities fund. We can all be proud of what the lottery has delivered. Contrary to what we read about school playing fields on the front page of The Guardian this morning, the investment in sports facilities and playing fields is at as high a level as it has been for many years.

    Lottery Funding
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When she next expects to meet representatives of village communities to discuss lottery funding for local projects. [85574]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The lottery review has provided an opportunity for representatives of village communities to put forward their concerns about the lottery funds for local and rural projects. I welcome their representations and would be happy to meet them once the representations, which I gather have been submitted, have been considered.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does the Secretary of State agree that some ridiculous and undeserving organisations have received substantial amounts of money? For example, the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns has received £740,000 to mount legal challenges against her Home Office colleagues while all the time deserving organisations in my constituency—local groups and parish groups—are being turned down. What will she do to ensure that the community fund changes its priorities? What will she do to get a grip on it?
    Tessa Jowell: I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants to associate himself with the nasty campaign against the community fund. I draw his attention to the fact that since 1995, it has awarded £109 million for building, extending and improving more than 2,200 village halls as part of £645 million that has been given to projects in rural areas. That is good constructive work, using lottery money to do the things that people want. It does neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Opposition any service at all to make that cheap point.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend will be meeting representatives of village communities, but may I urge her not just to think of villages as being places in rural areas? There are villages in former mining constituencies, many of which share the characteristics of rural constituencies, such as difficulties with access
    522
    and, in particular, in attracting lottery funding. I urge her to keep under constant review the question of how we can fairly make more money available to former mining constituencies.
    Tessa Jowell: As ever, my hon. Friend is speaking up for the interests of his constituents, who have benefited from his advocacy and, with other villages in coalfield communities, from the increased lottery allocation of which he will be aware. One of our concerns about the way in which the lottery operates is that village communities may find themselves falling between two or perhaps three different distributors when seeking lottery funds, and one of the tests of the review will be how effective it is in tackling such bureaucracy.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Secretary of State's appalling answer to the legitimate concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on behalf of his constituents will be unacceptable to my constituents. I have been besieged by letters from them protesting about the fact that a valuable village community centre has failed to get a grant from the community fund because it does not provide facilities for asylum seekers. If the Secretary of State wants to dismiss the concerns of millions of British citizens about the community fund's appalling decisions, she will rue the day. The Home Secretary has attacked one of those decisions—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Tessa Jowell: We have heard a rant from a spokesman for the nasty party. The point remains that 5 per cent., or £12 million, of community fund grants go to asylum seekers, and those broad allocations were approved by the Government. As I have already made clear to the House, there has also been major investment in rural communities, as there should be. The community fund exists to serve communities of all kinds in all parts of the country; that is what we expect it to do and that is what it will do.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new opportunities fund has significantly underspent its funding from rounds 1 and 2, it is rumoured by as much as £200 million? As that money was taken from the original good causes such as the community fund, whose funds are now even more depleted as a result of falling ticket sales, and as it is Christmas, will the Secretary of State consider returning some of that money to the original good causes for more community projects? It is not that there have not been any such projects, but many applications are turned down because of a lack of money. We need more community projects such as village halls and grass-roots sports clubs. That is not an unreasonable request.
    Tessa Jowell: I would certainly like to see more money going into grass-roots sports facilities and into the communities on whose behalf Members on both sides of the House have been making representations.
    I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted. He may be confusing money committed by the community fund with money that is part of the income stream. I shall certainly look at the figures.

    523
    In answer to his broad point, I am absolutely determined that the level of lottery balances will fall; the present level is unacceptably high. However, we have to distinguish clearly between money that has been committed but not yet spent by the projects concerned, and money that is available. That argument may be a touch too sophisticated for many of those on the Opposition Benches.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Adrian Flook: When she last met Camelot to discuss methods of improving lottery ticket sales. [85575]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed ticket sales with Camelot in April, and I plan to do so next month.
    Mr. Flook: I thank the Minister for his reply. Given that there is a direct correlation between sales and the public's impression of money going to good and worthy causes, does he not agree that the lottery is being severely undermined, as falling ticket sales month in, month out have demonstrated, by the raiding of the cookie jar to support programmes that should be funded by the taxpayer? Should he not have met Camelot much earlier than next month?
    Mr. Caborn: First, credit is due to the John Major Government for introducing the lottery, one of the most successful lotteries in the world. The House ought to reflect from time to time on the amount of damage done to what is now a national institution. Since its inception, £35.8 billion of tickets have been sold, and it has delivered £13.5 billion to good causes. Indeed, 100 of the most deprived local authorities are now receiving nearly half of the lottery moneys that are going out. The attacks on the lottery by the Daily Mail and others, including Members in the House this afternoon, are unfortunate. As I said, everyone in the House can take credit for the introduction of one of the best and most successful lotteries in the world. Papers and individuals—not the entire official Opposition—who undermine its credibility should reflect on the damage that they are doing to a national institution.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: When the Select Committee looked at the issue, it found that Camelot would be the best operator, but that Virgin had the best marketing for the lottery. Does my hon. Friend agree that the next time we advertise for the lottery, we should have a not-for-profit operator so that we can have the best operator and the best marketing company?
    Mr. Caborn: As my hon. Friend knows, we are consulting on the next licensing round. All the points that he made will be factored into the discussions that are under way. It is in everyone's interests to make sure that we get the best deal possible for the lottery and thus the good causes.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: But the Minister recognises that lottery sales are falling worryingly.
    524
    Despite his protestations in the House this afternoon, they will fall if the public feel that their money is not being spent on causes of which they approve. Will he therefore tell us whether his Department has given any further thought to an idea floated some months ago—that in buying lottery tickets the public could have more discretion about where that money is spent?
    Mr. Caborn: First, I have just come back from New Zealand, which is experiencing exactly the same problem of a decline in lottery sales. We had those problems before in 1996 and 1997, when lottery figures went down to £4,723 million. We have not reached that low this time and hopefully we will not—hopefully, ticket sales will plateau out and increase again. These things go through a cycle and need to be refreshed from time to time. Indeed, Camelot is doing so by bringing a number of products on to the market, with the support of the Government and the commission. I hope that the British public and Members of Parliament will get behind the lottery; as I said, it is a credit to all political parties.

    Media Ownership
    Mr. John Grogan: If she will make a statement on the Government's policy on whether owners of large shares of the national newspaper market should be able to own terrestrial TV stations. [85576]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): We will deregulate cross-media ownership to promote investment in growth while retaining the key rules that safeguard a plurality of media voices. The Communications Bill, which is currently in Committee, therefore makes it possible for a large newspaper group to own Channel 5, which at present has only a 6 per cent. audience share and 80 per cent. coverage of the UK. To safeguard plurality, however, we will keep the rule that prevents a large newspaper proprietor buying into ITV which, in contrast to Channel 5, has universal access to a mass audience.
    Mr. Grogan: Surely as a representative of the nice party and in the interests of plurality and democracy, my right hon. Friend must be a little worried about giving one man who owns 30 per cent. of our national newspaper market and the dominant satellite subscription system the chance to own Channel 5—a terrestrial channel with no public service obligations—and to cross-promote and hoover up rights, as that would seriously undermine other commercial broadcasters with significant public service roles, such as Channel 3 and Channel 4?
    Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has raised these matters on a number of occasions. He will be aware that the proposals in the Bill are proprietor-neutral. There are clear codes of guidance in relation to cross-promotion, which are currently monitored by the Independent Television Commission and will become the responsibility of Ofcom, once it is established.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady believe that the competition aspects of the Bill will be strong enough to deal with the type of scenario that she has just set out?
    Tessa Jowell: Yes, precisely because of the balance between deregulation to promote competition and the safeguards to ensure that high-quality programming continues on our screens and radios.

    Libraries
    Mr. Andrew Miller: What progress she has made towards the goal of putting all libraries online. [85578]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The £100 million lottery-funded people's network programme to connect all UK public libraries to the internet is well on course—4,085 libraries have been connected. There are 69 libraries—39 in England and 30 in Scotland—that have still to be connected. I am pleased to say that that represents a further election pledge that the Labour Government have delivered.
    Mr. Miller: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. If he comes to Ellesmere Port library, which, as he knows, is located close to some of the poorest parts of the constituency, he will see the fantastic enthusiasm of, and progress made by, many residents who have had little access to modern technology. Several organisations are helping to train people in the constituency. Training is the biggest gap remaining. Will he add to the commitment that he made by working with colleagues in other Departments to help the training of people from disadvantaged communities?
    Mr. Caborn: Very much so: we are investing £20 million in a training programme to make sure that the 40,000 staff in UK libraries are information and communications technology-literate and can help the constituents to whom my hon. Friend referred. To give a flavour of the success of the programme, the net corner at Croydon library offers free internet access across a network of 15 personal computers. The corner is in constant use, offering some 1,700 user sessions per week to users who collectively speak 65 languages other than English. The service is opening up a whole new world to them. That is a small example of the scheme's impact across the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: As a former librarian, I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in that regard. Does the Minister agree that the next step is to make the resources of public libraries more open and available? It is one thing to have online resources in public libraries, but another to open up their resources and riches to the community at large. May I draw to his attention a project based in my constituency at the National Library of Wales called "Gathering the Jewels"? It includes not only libraries but the best resources in museums and other public institutions in Wales, and brings them together on one website with not just information but pictorial representations, maps, sound files, media files and so on.
    526
    That is surely the way forward. I hope that he will look at the project and consider how it could be rolled out in libraries throughout the UK.
    Mr. Caborn: I agree. As the hon. Gentleman says, libraries are now much more than they have traditionally been. They are a major resource for the community and open up all sorts of opportunities well beyond the scope of traditional libraries. What hon. Members have described is mirrored across the country by the progressive library service that we have.

    Archaeology
    Tim Loughton: What steps she is taking to (a) promote archaeological research in the UK and (b) safeguard sites of archaeological interest. [85579]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government are firmly committed to the maintenance of an effective framework of statutory protection for all the elements of the historic environment and widening our understanding of the heritage. Protection measures include a new order extending the definition of treasure and the introduction of portable antiques schemes. The commitment is to introduce a Bill preventing the illicit trade in cultural objectives and a review of our heritage protection legislation framework. English Heritage is developing a research framework both for its own work and for the sector as a whole.
    Tim Loughton: The Minister may like to revisit some of the words that he used in that answer because they were wrong. Will he acknowledge that, weekly, important archaeological sites are being lost under the plough or because of new buildings and development? Will he read the new report from the parliamentary archaeological group, taken from a series of hearings held throughout this year, which shows patchy coverage in respect of sites and monuments records, that professional archaeologists have to survive on salaries of £12,000 or £13,000, and that competitive tendering provides the bare minimum for research in many parts of the country? Will he read that report, help to raise the profile of British archaeology and make his contribution by bringing together a much more joined-up approach to archaeology between his Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Education and Skills, so that one of them takes ownership of this subject?
    Mr. Caborn: The answer is yes, I will read the report.

    Deregulation
    Mr. David Cameron: How many regulations relating to live entertainment and sport her Department has (a) abolished, (b) repealed and (c) withdrawn in the last two years. [85580]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): My Department has revoked one regulation relating to the prohibition of live

    527
    entertainment in casinos. As a result, there is no longer an automatic prohibition to prevent casinos from offering dancing, live music or entertainment.
    Mr. Cameron: I thank the Minister for that answer, but is not the revocation of one regulation in the past two years a little disappointing? If his Department is to be the ministry for fun, is it not time for it to do better? As the Government are fond of targets, why do they not have some for getting rid of the bossy regulations that apply to everything from bingo to bookmakers? Will he introduce a moratorium on new regulations, such as those discussed earlier in respect of the Licensing Bill, that could impose new burdens on churches, music teachers and local organisations?
    Dr. Howells: As a humble Under-Secretary of State, I do not have the money to visit a casino and find out whether deregulation has had the effect that the hon. Gentleman suggests. In introducing the Licensing Bill, we are certainly looking to reduce the burden of regulation wherever possible. Instead of the current plethora of licences, including those for holding entertainment in public houses, there will be only one licence: a premises licence that will include other forms of entertainment and cut cost and bureaucracy. I am sure that he will welcome that.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will my hon. Friend consider urgently the case for new regulations in sport to help with the possibility of our hosting the Olympic games? Such regulations should be considered, not least because of the huge benefits that the Olympic games would bring for sport, business and regeneration.
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport will have heard that request.
    Mr. David Heath: Is it not a triumph of stultifying bureaucracy over freedom of expression that the ludicrous three-in-a-bar rule should be replaced with a none-in-the-bar rule? What on earth has the Minister's Department got against live music?
    Dr. Howells: It is the two-in-a-bar rule, not the three-in-a-bar rule, but I know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I can assure him that, as a great supporter of live music and especially of some of the brands of music that are sung in pubs in Somerset, I will do all that I can to ensure that such venues are strengthened, not weakened.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Linda Gilroy: What plans she has to tackle antisocial behaviour associated with drinking alcohol. [85583]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to present a Bill on measures to combat antisocial behaviour during this Session, but as the House is aware, we have also recently introduced into the House of Lords a Licensing Bill containing a number of measures designed to tackle alcohol-related and antisocial behaviour. That includes extending the
    528
    powers of the police to close noisy or disorderly premises and reinforcing and strengthening laws on the purchase and consumption of alcohol by young people under 18.
    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's campaign in her constituency on alcohol consumption by children.
    Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the forthcoming measures in the new Bill. She will be aware that her colleagues in the Department of Health have an alcohol harm reduction strategy out to consultation. Will she undertake to consider the early lessons that may emerge in January, before the Bill comes to the House of Commons?
    Tessa Jowell: In tackling under-age drinking and the aspects of antisocial behaviour that concern my hon. Friend and, I suspect, the whole House, it will of course be important to consider the conclusions drawn from the work undertaken by the Department of Health with the Prime Minister's strategy unit and to ensure that the Licensing Bill takes them into account. I am also sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will want to bear those issues in mind in considering the detailed drafting of the Bill on antisocial behaviour.
    Mr. Mark Field: The Licensing Bill is currently going through the House of Lords. How does the Secretary of State think that the Government's plan to stamp out antisocial drinking is compatible with the idea of 24-hour licensing, which will give a free rein to anyone who wishes to drink in parts of my constituency such as Soho and Covent Garden that are beset by drunken incidents in the early hours of the morning, especially on Saturdays and Sundays?
    Tessa Jowell: The Government certainly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on the second point, and we are considering the adequacy of measures to deal with the problem. One reason for our introduction of flexible opening hours for pubs, however, is the current detrimental effect on law and order caused by the presence of large numbers of people on the streets at the same time. Indeed, all the evidence shows that staggered opening hours reduce the number of people staggering out of the pubs.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Political Parties (Grants)
    Martin Linton: What discussions he has held with the Electoral Commission about (a) grants to political parties for training, for e-communications and for international work and (b) increased grants for policy development. [85598]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): The commission has told us of its intention to launch a project in spring next year to review the existing system for policy development grants. It will consider the case for extending the areas on which those funds can be spent.
    Martin Linton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is now cross-party support for training, e-communications and international work, and that there was cross-party support for policy development grants during the passage of the Bill that became the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000? That gives us the first opportunity for a generation to proceed on a cross-party basis, and extend state funding to areas of party political activity that are generally agreed to be part of the functioning of our democracy.
    Mr. Beith: Some of those matters are covered by the review, but others may extend beyond the Commission's present responsibilities into the area where, for instance, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy works with the support of grant-in-aid from the Foreign Office. All concerned, however, will have heard the hon. Gentleman's expression of support.
    Simon Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is huge support for the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which has supported democracy building in such places as Sierra Leone and the non-EU applicant countries in eastern Europe and elsewhere? Could the Commission examine ways in which we can maximise the benefit of public sector, voluntary sector and party funding to ensure that best practice here and in Europe is spread in other countries that are keen to learn from our experience?
    Mr. Beith: I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the commission, which is of course aware of the role played by the foundation and the parties themselves in promoting democracy in many parts of the world. That is not the focus of the commission's own responsibilities, but there is obviously experience to be shared.
    Kevin Brennan: If there is to be more public funding for the work of political parties, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the commission ways of ensuring that the money is well spent—not least because since 1997, Short money has been increased by 300 per cent. without any discernible improvement in the Tory party's performance?
    Mr. Beith: I am sure that the commission's chairman is pleased that he does not have to rule on the performance of parties in receipt of Short money. Nor, on this occasion, do I.

  CHURCH COMISSIONERS
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMISSIONERS

    Clergy Licences
    Andrew Selous: What representations he has received from clergy who have not had their licences renewed by their bishops about their financial and employment position. [85599]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I have not received any such representations from clergy who have not had their licences renewed; neither has the Archbishops Council.
    Andrew Selous: What protection does the hon. Gentleman feel the Church should afford to some clergy who, I understand, have had to give up their licences and their vicarages when they have felt that doctrine did not agree with the views held by their bishops?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for the opportunity to comment as well as answer a question. In answer to the question, financial assistance may be provided in cases of especial hardship experienced by those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. Most such clergy have their licences renewed or find another post without undue difficulty. However, the Archbishops Council supports improvements to the security of clergy without freehold, and we are now discussing the matter with the Department of Trade and Industry. The Clergy Discipline Measure that comes before the Ecclesiastical Committee next week will doubtless cover it.
    I leave doctrine to others.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend knows that, in recent years, the Church has maintained a steady policy of trying to persuade more clergy to have not freehold but short, temporary licences of between five and seven years. We do not give clergy proper employment rights. Does not that mean that the Church is becoming one of the worst employers in the land?
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend should know that better than me, given his past. Off the top of my head, there are approximately 5,000 freehold clergy, 3,000 clergy on contract and 3,000 stipendiary clergy. On employment relations, the ministry is a mission of Christ, as my hon. Friend knows, and it is therefore for the incumbent to owe allegiance to Christ. However, employment relations and employment law are not mutually exclusive and my hon. Friend will be happy to know that we are moving rapidly on employment rights, which are linked to the Clergy Discipline Measure that the Ecclesiastical Committee will consider next week.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not the Church of England's policy to abolish the freehold? If so, will he encourage bishops to stop abolishing it by stealth?
    Mr. Bell: Again, I am asked to comment rather than answer a specific question. It is not the Church of England's intention to reduce the number of freehold clergy. The position of freehold clergy, contract clergy and stipendiary clergy forms part of the document that we have submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry. It will be available in the House of Commons Library. I believe that the hon. Gentleman and the House will find it positive.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Election Dates
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: What discussions he has had with the Electoral Commission on moving elections to a Sunday. [85600]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): None. However, the Electoral Commission stated in its strategic evaluation of the 2002 electoral pilot schemes that it would welcome further pilots of weekend voting or voting over several days, including the weekend, instead of Thursday voting, to test voter preferences.
    Mr. Wyatt: Who decides when a European election is held—the United Kingdom Government or the European Union? Most Europeans countries hold such elections on a Sunday, but we do not.
    Mr. Beith: I believe that the United Kingdom decides, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he has the correct information.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Local Authority Licensing
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What assessment he has made of the financial impact of the proposed extension of local authority licensing to church venues; and if he will make a statement. [85601]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the Bishop of London's speech in the House of Lords on Second Reading of the Licensing Bill. He highlighted concerns on behalf of churches and cathedrals about the provisions for using places of worship for entertainment such as concerts and plays.
    Miss McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman was present when the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who remains in his place, said that a review is under way. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in making
    532
    urgent representations to the Under-Secretary, especially on the severe impact that such a licensing system would have on rural churches, which are a centre for many social and cultural activities as well as religious services?
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Lady knows that the majority of musical events in her constituency take place in churches and chapels, from York minster to humble parish churches, including her own parish church of Sowerby. She will be encouraged to know that in last week's Committee stages of the Licensing Bill, the Bishop of London tabled an amendment to obviate the difficulties that churches would experience. It was supported in Committee. The Minister for the Arts said that she would consider it and we hope for a positive outcome in the House of Lords.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    E-democracy
    Mr. Graham Allen: What proposals the Electoral Commission has to use e-democracy to improve low levels of participation. [85602]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): I understand that the Electoral Commission recently submitted its response to the Government's consultation paper on a policy for electronic democracy. It welcomed consideration of the role of technology in promoting participation, but underlined that the application of new methods of voting alone could not be relied upon to increase election turnout. The Electoral Commission will continue to evaluate the operation and impact of electronic schemes that were piloted at local elections. It will also use new technologies to support its voter awareness activities when appropriate.
    Mr. Allen: Every elector can now help us to make better law in this place, in that we can now put pre-legislative scrutiny online. Any electors watching that webcast can e-mail back to us their experiences and views to help to create better law. However, although online pre-legislative scrutiny will be available throughout the United Kingdom—and, indeed, the globe—it is not yet available to hon. Members in this place. We are the last people to be allowed access to it. I know that this is a matter of concern to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he tell the House what he has managed to do to allow Members access to pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills? Will he also commend this example of e-democracy, which will help to tackle some of the

    533
    problems of low participation by the electorate by allowing them to enter this place and make a genuine contribution to law making?
    Mr. Beith: I can indeed commend the idea that the hon. Gentleman advocates, but it does not fall within the responsibilities of the Electoral Commission or, indeed, of the Speaker's Committee.
    Mr. Steve Webb: I notice that my right hon. Friend's response to the question about participation was framed principally in terms of electronic voting. Does he accept that the real problem relates not so much to what happens on the day of a general election as to what happens in the four or five years in between them? Can he ensure that, when the commission considers these issues, it looks more at what happens in between elections than at what happens on polling day?
    Mr. Beith: Yes, I believe that the commission is very conscious of that issue. Indeed, my reply implied that the mere introduction of other mechanisms for voting will not, by itself, deal with the problem of low voter turnout.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Creative Arts
    Mr. Robert Key: What assessment the Commissioners have made of the financial impact of the Government's proposal to license the performance of creative arts in places of worship. [85603]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Figures suggest that, under the Licensing Bill's proposals, churches or other places of worship seeking to provide entertainment five times a year would pay 100 each year. If more events than that were required, a full licence would be needed and annual inspections would be necessary, each of which would attract a fee.
    Mr. Key: May I invite the hon. Gentleman to stiffen the resolve of the Government to look again at this issue, as the Minister said in the other place last week? For example, the proposals will affect not just a particular church, but any building within the curtilage of that church, as well as open-air events in churchyards. Salisbury cathedral, in my constituency, covers 74 acres, containing three schools, Sarum college, a museum, a conservation centre, a National Trust house, a medieval hall and 150 houses including the deanery and the bishop's house, all of which are used for entertainment and fundraising efforts. The bureaucracy involved in these provisions will surely outweigh the benefit to those collecting the licence fee in terms of tax.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an inventory of Salisbury cathedral. He will be interested to know that 16,250 church buildings belonging to the Church of England alone will be covered by the proposed legislation. Many other denominations and faiths are also affected by the proposals as they stand. I invite the hon. Gentleman, and the Association of English Cathedrals, to write to the appropriate Minister to express their views, as we are doing as Church Commissioners, as the Archbishops Council is doing, and as the Bishop of London has so ably done in Committee in the House of Lords.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that many churches, such as St. Peter's in Burnley, hold many more than five events a year? They do so not only to raise money, but to be part of the community. Such events provide essential community facilities, and we must ensure that that continues.
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend makes a wider point than he imagines, because the Church plays a central role in our local communities—with entertainment and charity events in church halls, for example—and that is to be encouraged. What we are seeing now is a Government who are prepared to listen. Baroness Blackstone has said that she will consider the amendment proposed by the Bishop of London, and we have heard favourable noises from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and her team today. I am, therefore, hopeful that we will get a dispensation not only for churches throughout the country, but for churches in London that are already covered by previous legislation. My hon. Friend's point is well made and is being listened to. We are hopeful of a positive outcome.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Online Voting
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the implications for privacy of voting of the introduction of online voting. [85604]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): The commission's evaluation of the May 2002 electoral pilots recognised concerns about the potential loss of privacy for voters involved in remote electronic voting and postal voting. However, the commission also noted that it was unaware of any evidence to suggest that remote voting led to an increase in formal allegations of electoral offences. The commission will continue to monitor closely the implications of remote voting.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the reassurance that the commission is aware of the possibilities of abuse, but is it not also the case that the best and most effective forms of abuse are those that are least capable of being detected? If there is good reason for us having separate booths for privacy when we go to the polling stations to cast our vote, surely voting at home online opens up the possibility of undetected
    536
    fraud whereby pressure is put on some members of a family to vote en bloc in a way that they might not in the privacy of the polling booth.
    Mr. Beith: One way to ensure that such pressure is not found too often is to make choice available to the electors as to how they cast their vote. Choice is one of the concepts that the commission has sought to encourage in its pilots so that people are not required to vote in ways that limit privacy.

European Council (Copenhagen)
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council that took place in Copenhagen on 12 and 13 December. Negotiations were successfully concluded to admit to membership 10 countries from eastern and central Europe, and Cyprus and Malta. We hope that Romania and Bulgaria will be ready to follow in 2007.
Today, we take it for granted that the 10 countries are all democratic nations living by the same values as the rest of Europe, but for anyone who remembers the Hungarian uprising of 1956, the Prague spring of 1968 or the imposition of military rule in Poland in 1981, the transformation of those countries from tyranny to democracy and now to full European Union membership is a huge achievement of which Europe and Britain can be justly proud.
We have long been the champions of European enlargement. The negotiations for membership began during the British presidency of the EU in 1998, and I should like to pay tribute particularly to the Danish presidency and the Commission, which brought the negotiations to a successful conclusion.
Details of the final package are annexed to the conclusions of the meeting. Membership will bring immediate economic benefits to the candidates. It will create a single market of 450 million people. Our trade has increased nearly 10 times as fast with those new countries as with the rest of the world, and 14,000 UK firms now export to east and central Europe. Membership of the EU will boost the gross domestic product of those countries by nearly 1.5 per cent., and our own by up to nearly £2 billion.
The new member states are countries that have only recently rediscovered their national identity. They, like us, will want the further integration of the Union to be firmly rooted in the democratic accountability of the nation state. They shall be our allies in developing a European Union on those lines.
For some time, Turkey has been knocking on the door of the European Union. The response of the Union has rightly been to encourage a closer economic and political relationship, but to say that full membership would be possible only when Turkey met the necessary human rights criteria.
In the past year, Turkey has made enormous strides by abolishing the death penalty and adopting a range of human rights laws. The new Turkish Government have promised a detailed legislative timetable to accelerate that progress. I believe that it is massively in our interests to see Turkey as a modern democratic partner in Europe. For that reason, I have been urging our partners to offer Turkey a date to open negotiations for membership, provided that the so-called Copenhagen criteria are met. I am pleased to report to the House that that was achieved in Copenhagen.
The Commission will report on Turkey's progress and if, in December 2004, on a recommendation from the Commission, the European Council decides that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, accession negotiations with Turkey will open without delay. That
538
agreement has contributed to a better climate on the long-standing Cyprus dispute. The Secretary-General of the United Nations and his special representative, Mr. De Soto, have been tireless in their efforts, as has our own special representative, Lord Hannay. A settlement remains within reach. I urge all parties to continue their efforts to find a comprehensive settlement, which would allow a reunited Cyprus to join the European Union, as set out in the conclusions of the European Council.
We were also able to resolve differences between Turkey and Greece that have delayed the agreement between the European Union and NATO necessary to allow the implementation of a European security and defence policy. We have now established the essential linkage with NATO, which means that where NATO is not involved the European Union can undertake peacekeeping operations using NATO planning, with the option of using NATO headquarters and NATO assets as well. As a result, the European Union stands ready to take over the military operation in Macedonia, in consultation with NATO, and to lead a military operation in Bosnia following SFOR.
The European Council issued a declaration on the middle east in advance of the Quartet ministerial meeting in Washington. The Quartet brings together the European Union, the United States, Russia and the United Nations, and its meeting on 20 December will take us a further step forward. In the short term, progress on the Israeli side will be limited by the general election campaign in Israel. However, I believe that we should use the intervening period to maximise the chances of successful implementation of the road map once a new Israeli Government are in place.
That means continuing to do what we can to secure an end to violence, and to reverse the deteriorating humanitarian situation. It also means ensuring that Palestinian reform is effective. To that end, I can announce today that I am inviting leading Palestinians to come to Britain in January for a conference, along with members of the Quartet and other countries from the region closely involved in supporting the reform effort. The participants will discuss progress on reform and consider how the international community can help. It is in the interests of Palestinians and Israelis that the reform efforts succeed, so that we can make a reality of President Bush's vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.
The European Council also issued a declaration on Iraq, giving its full and unequivocal support for Security Council resolution 1441 and urging Iraq to seize this final opportunity to comply with its international obligations.
Finally, we speak against the background of serious problems confronting our fishing industry. In the past 30 years, cod stocks in the North sea have fallen from 250,000 tonnes to 35,000 tonnes. If fishing continues at the present rate there is a risk of there being no viable cod fishing industry left. That is why the European Commission has suggested a reduction in fishing of 80 per cent., to enable the cod stock to recover to its absolute minimum viable level. Scientists believe that the safe minimum is 150,000 tonnes.
We share the objective of enabling fish stocks to recover, but we believe that much more moderate measures could deliver recovery while maintaining a

539
viable industry. I have talked extensively both with the President of the Commission at Copenhagen and with Commissioner Fischler previously. Fisheries Ministers are now meeting in Brussels to reach agreement on the issue.
The UK fishing industry has benefited over the past year from £36 million of funding to support adjustment through decommissioning. This includes the Scottish Executive's action to help preserve fish stocks and ensure the industry's long-term viability with a £27 million aid package. If there are further cuts arising from the ongoing negotiations in Brussels, the UK Government and the Scottish Executive stand ready to help the fishing communities affected. I will meet leaders of the industry in the new year, and financial assistance will be made available if necessary, but the priority for now must be to get a fair deal for our fishing industry.
The summit was a remarkable achievement. It redefines the future shape of Europe. It describes a future in which Europe is reunited, a Europe of proud and sovereign nation states, working together economically, socially and politically in their common interest. The prospect of Turkey's membership has even more dramatic implications. A nation that borders the Arab world, that is Muslim, that is none the less striking out on a path leading to liberal democracy, is set in time to join the traditional nations of Europe.
The implications for the future of Europe are profound. In time, all these new countries will be part of the European economy, part of monetary union, part of European defence, part of the European political system. For us in Britain, the implications are equally profound. It is our job to be part of the new Europe that is developing, to be a leading power within it and to understand the degree to which our national interest is bound up with it. Isolation from Europe in this new world is absolute folly. That is why we shall continue to fight for our interests, but recognise that they are best served inside the European Union, not on its margins.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and join him in welcoming the conference that he has apparently announced today for leading Palestinian reformers, involving representatives of the EU, the UN, Russia and the United States. We will await more details on that before dealing with it in detail ourselves.
This historic summit is a tribute to the long, hard and sometimes lonely battles fought by successive British Governments to extend the benefits of EU membership to the former communist states of central and eastern Europe. Like the Prime Minister, I, too, congratulate the Danish presidency and in particular Prime Minister Rasmussen, who has been a diligent and honest broker for a working settlement on enlargement. However, I think that I speak for many on both sides of the House, as well as for millions elsewhere in Europe, when I express my regret at how long enlargement has taken. As the Prime Minister knows, for all British Governments it is 13 years since the Berlin wall came down: 13 years of excluding central and eastern European countries from western European markets, all because Brussels insisted on full compliance with social legislation. Only now has the EU lived up to its obligations; as I have said, it was successive British Governments who tried to lead the way. Enlargement
540
may be the European Union's finest hour, but its delay reveals the vested interests in parts of the EU with which we have become all too familiar.
The Copenhagen summit showed a side to the Franco-German axis with which the Prime Minister is also becoming all too familiar. Back in October in Brussels, he was outflanked by France and Germany when they delayed common agricultural policy reform—a move that will greatly increase the cost of EU membership to accession states and to existing member states alike. Last week in Copenhagen, he was again outflanked—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Last week in Copenhagen, the Prime Minister was again outflanked by France and Germany over membership negotiations for Turkey. The Turks wanted them to start before the current round of enlargement was implemented, and they were supported not just by the UK Government, but by the Spanish, the Italians and even the Greeks. Yet, once again, France and Germany prevailed. Negotiations have been delayed until December 2004—well after enlargement will have been completed.
Does the Prime Minister agree that those actions by France and Germany have been to the detriment of the European Union? Does he also agree that it is imperative that we encourage Turkey, as a NATO ally and as a secular, democratic Muslim nation, to play a full role in the European Union at the earliest possible opportunity? We are constantly urging the benefits of democracy on the Islamic world, yet here is the EU telling Turkey that she must prove her intentions all over again. Does not the Prime Minister think that direct negotiations would provide the strongest possible incentive for Turkey to meet the highest standards on human rights? Does he also agree that negotiations would provide the ideal opportunity to ensure that Cyprus—now to be an EU member itself—became a united island again? Was not the decision to delay these negotiations a snub for the Government of Turkey and for all those nations that supported her?
The Prime Minister says that the Euro army has reached an agreement with NATO that will allow it to use the alliance's planning, assets and headquarters. This, he said, means that the Euro army "stands ready" to take over military operations in Macedonia. Is that not in fact an admission that the Euro army should have been inside NATO all along? Now we have the rather ridiculous sight of the Prime Minister pretending that the EU has no military competence other than NATO deciding what it will or will not do. Surely the Government's position on this throughout has been seen for what it is—baseless and solely part of a wider negotiation with France.
Last week I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to raise the severe proposed cuts to British fishing quotas. There was not one word about the common fisheries policy in the presidency's conclusions. That seems strange, given that before Copenhagen the Prime Minister wrote that Scottish fishermen would have the Government's full backing
"right to the very top".
According to today's statement, that amounted to the Prime Minister holding a conversation with Romano Prodi on the margins of the Copenhagen summit. With

541
40,000 jobs at stake on the basis of a contested scientific report, Britain's fishing community surely deserves better than just a conversation. Instead, it seems that the Government fully accepted that further savage cuts would be necessary. Why did the Prime Minister not force discussion of the fundamental issues of the CFP on to the table, as would have been required? It seems doubly strange that the conclusions refer to Spanish fishermen and Portuguese farmers, whose concerns were raised and registered at the same summit, whereas our fishermen have been left out.
The Prime Minister is right: this ought to have been a truly historic moment for our continent, when the cold war divisions were replaced with a new European settlement on prosperity, stability and mutual co-operation. Instead, all too often, the EU élites, to which he never refers, are bent on creating some sort of superpower. The common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, which the Prime Minister simply fails to sort out, are left unreformed as part of wider discussions. The forces of old Europe seem reluctant to let go: making them do so will take more than the Prime Minister talking tough before meetings and backing down after he has been there.
The Prime Minister The Prime Minister: Where does one begin, Mr. Speaker? First, for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the enlargement process has been a great setback for the European Union is bizarre. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but he effectively said that it was disgraceful that it had taken so long. I think that it is remarkable that, 13 years after the Berlin wall fell, we have managed to get 10 countries into the European Union.
Mr. Michael Ancram: My right hon. Friend welcomed it.
The Prime Minister: If I may say so, it was a slightly grudging welcome. Given the interests at stake, it is a remarkable tribute to the vitality of the European Union that these countries have been accepted. The Leader of the Opposition had to make this attack because at the very time when a large part of the Conservative party is queueing up to get out, this other lot is queueing up to get in.
As for what the right hon. Gentleman said about Turkey, what happened was not to do with the French and German objections. It is correct that Britain, Italy, Spain and probably Greece would have gone further, but many countries were deeply hesitant about whether Turkey could fulfil the criteria. The key was to get a date, and we have got a date. It could have been a few months earlier, but it is, again, a tremendous step forward in Europe's relations with Turkey. Although I am a huge supporter of Turkey's membership of the European Union, there are issues to do with human rights that must be addressed. It is important that we address them and that Turkey's new leadership, who are really trying to address the issues, are given time to do so properly. It is churlish to suggest that the European Union was snubbing us or snubbing Turkey. Given where we were, it is a big step forward.
On European defence, the whole point about Macedonia is that NATO does not wish to be involved. That is why it is sensible for European defence, using the
542
full support of NATO, to do it. The reason that it is so important to have European defence—but on the right basis, fully consistent with NATO—is precisely because there may be situations when, for whatever reason, NATO does not want to be involved. It is important, therefore, that Europe has the capability to do that for itself. The British Conservative party is against European defence, but even America now supports it as the right way forward for Europe and for NATO.
The most disastrous thing that we could do in respect of the CFP would be to adopt what I assume is now the policy of the Conservative party and withdraw from it. That would give us no protection whatsoever. It would not actually stop cod stocks being fished before they migrate to British waters—it would not actually help our fishermen at all. We must recognise that there is a huge problem. We are fighting hard to get the best deal possible, but it is a cruel deception to pretend to the fishing industry either that there is not an issue or that there is some simple solution—neither is correct.
As for the Leader of the Opposition's statement that with the Conservative party we should get a better deal in Europe, I do not know of a Conservative party—it will be interesting to see whether Opposition Members can name one—anywhere else in Europe, in the existing EU, in the countries that are about to join or in countries that may join later, that supports the completely foolish, backward and isolationist policy of the British Conservative party.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and join him in congratulating the successful Danish presidency.
Judging from the House's reaction to the remarks of the leader of the Conservative party, it widely shares the view that we felt no sense of history when the right hon. Gentleman described a time of such historic groundbreaking achievement for Europe and for the spread of democracy, stability, peace and security across the continent as 13 wasted years. I thought that that referred to a different period in history relating to the Conservative party.
None the less, the 18 years of unbroken Conservative Government in this country certainly helped to build the single European market. It helped to extend qualified majority voting—thanks to Mrs. Thatcher and the Conservative party—and it even helped to pave the way for the enlargement process on which Conservative Members seem to be trying to pour cold water today. They have no sense of history and even less sense of the future—that is the Conservative party.
Given that some of the continuing entrenched aspects of the common agricultural policy have become even more entrenched as a result of some of the decisions that were reached at the summit, what prospect does the Prime Minister see, with enlargement ahead of us, of achieving the genuine, long-term reform of the CAP that is inevitable, desirable and will come about only if our country plays its full part at the top table of Europe? It will not be achieved on the country club membership basis advocated by certain people.
Would not Britain's hand in Europe be strengthened more generally if we showed greater political resolve on the single European currency? Increasingly, we risk

543
marginalising ourselves, as well as suffering domestic economic disadvantage, due to continuing uncertainty about a referendum and about the Government's long-term political commitment on the issue.
I welcome the decision reached about Turkey. It is important that over the next two years there is full and active engagement with the Turkish authorities—not least as regards human rights—to ensure that as and when accession negotiations with Turkey are held, they are based on stability and dependable understanding as regards not only the commitment of the Turkish democratic authorities to Europe itself, but the need to maintain the fundamental values of human rights that Europe enshrines and to which we are signatories.
Does the Prime Minister agree that it does not help intelligent discussion of matters European in this country to speak in a completely misleading fashion, bandying about such shorthand terms as "Euro army"? In fact, there is a strategic and sensible basis on which NATO and the EU can co-operate when they want to do so or whereby they can pursue different or varying agendas when that is the most sensible course. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that message from the summit, following the most recent NATO discussions, is welcome and must be the sane way forward?
Fisheries are a major concern to many of our communities, not least those in Scotland, so I welcome today's statement from the Commission that it wishes to defer decisions on quotas for a further three months. In his discussions with the leaders of the fishing representatives after the turn of the year, will the Prime Minister take every opportunity to carry them with him on the discussions that must ensue about the scientific evidence? The fact that our domestic fleet has already made a good contribution must be recognised in Brussels to a greater and more sensitive extent than it has been so far.
Finally, I welcome the Palestine conference, which the Prime Minister has announced today, but will he underscore the need for Europe to be seen to be contributing to restarting the middle east peace process? Will he acknowledge that it would be appropriate for the Defence Secretary or the Foreign Secretary to make a statement before the recess about any possible British troop deployments vis-à-vis Iraq during the parliamentary recess?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman about enlargement. It is worth pointing out that Britain has always done best in Europe when it has been engaged. Although, of course, the Conservative party's history in Europe when it was in office has been somewhat rewritten, the fact is that Mrs. Thatcher was engaged in Europe for the first seven or eight years of her premiership, and the Conservatives were responsible for putting through the single market proposals. It is important to realise that, in the end, they were a lot more sensible then than they are now, and perhaps the same could be said of us.
The key is to ensure that we carry on getting the best possible deal for Britain. That is also true in relation to CAP reform. The leader of the Conservative party was quite wrong. CAP reform was not blocked at the Brussels summit. Indeed, the disagreement was about over insistence that the mid-term review should go back
544
into the conclusions of the Brussels summit, so the agriculture reform programme continues, as the Commissioner indicated a few days ago.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the position on the euro has not changed. I agree with what he says about Turkey. On the CFP, I also agree that it is important that we try to work out the very best deal that we can possibly secure for our fishing industry, recognising that there is a genuine problem. I simply say that people who complain that the Government are not doing enough but refuse to recognise that a fundamental issue has to be tackled—whoever was in government would have to tackle it—are not doing a service to the Scottish fishing industry because they are pretending that there is an easy solution when there is not one.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about European defence. The benefit of engagement is absolutely clear. The tragedy is that if we were not engaged as a country in the debate about European defence, it would not mean that European defence would not take place; it would simply mean that it would take place without us.
Andrew Mackinlay: Is it not a fact that, for many people in central Europe, what has been agreed this weekend will represent a remedy to the great outrage of Munich and to the invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939? Is it not a great tragedy that the great statesman from Chingford cannot rejoice about the fact that the sacrifice of those 17 per cent. of the few who fought above this place, recklessly in our interests as well as theirs, will have the satisfaction that their countries will come into the family of European nations?
May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will now ensure that the United Kingdom Government and those in our commerce and industry go on an offensive to ensure that we get in on the markets of the new member states? Under the Labour Government, Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry have been insufficiently in attendance in those countries, and I hope that—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The Prime Minister: I am sure that we will make every effort in that regard. Important commercial opportunities will exist for our business and industry. Those countries that will come into the European Union under enlargement will offer tremendous opportunities for our companies and we must ensure that we seize them.
Sir Patrick Cormack: In welcoming much of the Prime Minister's statement, may I ask why there was no mention of Zimbabwe? Was not the plight of southern Africa in general, and the terrible fate awaiting Zimbabwe in particular, raised during the summit? We were assured by a Foreign Office Minister last week, in an appearance before the Foreign Affairs Committee, that it would be raised. Why was it not?
The Prime Minister: It was discussed at the Foreign Ministers meeting. I say again to the hon. Gentleman—I know that he feels passionately about this issue, as everybody does—that we must have the specific remedies that will work in this situation.
Joyce Quin: I welcome enlargement, which is a tremendous cause for celebration. Given the impressive and widespread use of English in many of the enlargement countries, will my right hon. Friend lead an effort across Government not only to encourage industry to take opportunities in the new market, but to increase public awareness in Britain of the significance of this historic achievement?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right on this matter, and I know that she has done a lot of work on it. It is interesting, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has pointed out to me, that of the 13 countries to come in under this enlargement or to come in subsequently, 12 gave their addresses in the English language.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when in Copenhagen, he discussed with other Heads of Government their support for military action against Iraq? Can he tell us how many are so persuaded of the moral case for war, as against a legal cover afforded by the Security Council resolution, that they are prepared to pledge troops and assets in a military deployment?
The Prime Minister: Of course the issue was raised and discussed on the margins of the summit with many countries. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that all the countries to which I talked are fully in support of the UN resolution and recognise that if there is a breach of that resolution by Saddam, action should follow. Whether they participate or not is up to them.
Keith Vaz: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the personal role that he has played in the enlargement process? As well as being a champion for enlargement, will he continue to be a champion for reform, and ensure that the points that he set out in his joint letter with Chancellor Schröder of 25 February this year, which will see the reform of the European Union, are followed? We will have a Europe of 25 nations. I know how much he enjoys these summits, but with 25 countries at a summit, it is very important that it should be as efficient and as effective as possible.
The Prime Minister: Likewise I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and all that he did when he was Minister for Europe to push forward the process of enlargement, which was important. Secondly, in relation to the Council and the Convention, one of the interesting things is that when we talk, in the European Convention, about the reform process in Europe, most people recognise that we must make fundamental changes in the way that Europe works. It was interesting that when President Giscard d'Estaing addressed the Council he made it clear that we had to strengthen all parts of the European Union, including the European Council.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the Prime Minister accept whatever share of the credit is his due for the success of the Copenhagen summit? Will he agree, however, that probably the lion's share of the credit should go to the Danish President of the Commission, who is, I believe, the political ally of
546
the British Conservative party—[Interruption.] He is a Danish Conservative. Would the Prime Minister agree that that underlines the special urgency of achieving institutional reform of the European Union within the next 12 months, during which it will be decided whether we can have a better decision-making process for 25 member states than we have at the moment for 15?
Does the Prime Minister intend to stick to his principles of a clear leadership of the Council of Ministers, a clear leadership role within the Union for the Council of Ministers, intergovernmental approaches to foreign and security policy rather than the Community method, and greater democracy at the same time? Does he think that he can achieve all that? Will the new members be on his side or not in the difficult negotiations over the next 12 months?
The Prime Minister: I certainly pay tribute to the Danish President. I agree that the negotiations were conducted superbly by him, but he is actually President of the Council, not the Commission. I do not know whether he is an ally of this Conservative leader—but who knows whether he may not be an ally of any other Conservative leader.
I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's other points. The proper red lines for our national interest in the convention are that we have the Council able to play its full role and that it is properly organised. In our judgment, there cannot be a Communitisation of the common foreign and security policy. We have to make sure that we increase the democratic accountability of the European Union.
I entirely agree about the new members of the EU. After all, these states fought to be nations again. I said in my statement that they had rediscovered their national identity, but they have always had their national identity. What they have not had is the opportunity to express it. These countries will be our allies in the EU, which is why it is important that they see us playing our full part in the EU and are not at its margins.
Mr. Wayne David: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a truly historic summit that was good for Britain and for the whole European continent. However, will he use his good offices to apply pressure to the Turkish Government who, in turn, should apply pressure on the Turkish Cypriots to come to an agreement for the unification of the whole of the island under the Kofi Annan plan?
The Prime Minister: I hope very much that all sides in the Cyprus negotiations take them forward constructively. There is no point in my entering into the details now, but the United Nations proposal is an immensely clever and intelligent proposal that offers a way forward. I still believe that it is possible for the countries to come to an agreement. For years and years, as a result of disagreements between Turkey and Greece, many of these issues have been held up. However, what is interesting about this summit and the way it took place is that Greece was in favour of Turkey being given an even earlier date for the opening of accession negotiations. A few years ago, I would have been surprised to have been told that such a change would happen now.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Prime Minister mentioned cod stocks. However, he must be

547
aware that, on the same scientific measurement, whiting and haddock stocks are at their highest for a generation and that they will be caught up in the same draconian cuts by the European Commission. Does that not indicate that time is required to come up with a management plan that conserves fish without provoking the economic destruction of entire coastal communities? The Prime Minister seemed surprised to find out that that view was emerging this afternoon in the talks. Will he now put his weight behind it and ask for a delay for pause and for thought, instead of rushing headlong to disaster over the next few days?
The Prime Minister: Of course that is precisely what we are trying to do. All that I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman and to anyone else who has raised the issue is that we have to recognise that we will be fighting for the interests of the Scottish and UK fishing industry against the background of heavily depleted cod stocks. I agree that that is not the only issue, but it is important to recognise that it is the case. We will strive to get the very best deal that we possibly can, and that is precisely what Ministers are now engaged upon in Brussels.
Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this historic and marvellous achievement has been brought about by work done by many people over many years to create pluralistic democratic societies in central and eastern Europe? Does he agree that the job is not yet complete? Other European states still wish to join the EU, so can we ensure that, over the next few years, we continue to give support for pluralistic civil society and democracy building in countries to the east of the existing EU?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the work that he has done over many years to encourage countries that are now applicant countries and countries that may become applicant countries to improve their democracy. I have no doubt at all that, in years to come, for countries in the Balkan region, in particular, EU membership will be the same magnet for change and reform as European membership has been for the 10 accession countries now. It is extraordinary how much change they have managed to undertake in a short time, but they have managed to undertake it only because there has been the goal and the vision of EU and NATO membership to aim for.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Prime Minister agree on the need for a fair and balanced public debate in the candidate countries, especially in the run-up to their referendums on membership, to ensure genuine public support? If so, would he end the practice of EU budget funding for one side of the debate in those countries? Will he look into the known and documented abuses that have taken place and ensure that public money, some of which comes from this country, is not used in that partial way?
The Prime Minister: There are rules that have to be followed, and they should be followed. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a sceptic about enlargement, but I think that European enlargement is of fundamental importance to our future peace and
548
stability. As I said, there are rules in Europe. We are not pressing for changes, but any of those rules that are in existence have to be followed properly.
Jane Griffiths: May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend and all involved on achieving the historic outcome of the European Council? He will know that as each country has acceded to the European Union since 1973, British exports to them have surged. Does he agree that the economic and political future of Europe looks good for Britain and casts the carpers, nit-pickers and isolationists into the outer darkness where they belong?
The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that British companies have done well as a result of enlargement. We have increased our exports to those countries by something like 10 times. Those people who are hesitant about the benefits of enlargement fail to understand that in the end we all benefit from a more prosperous Europe. Every time the European Union has enlarged, there has been increased prosperity for existing EU members as well as for the new ones.
Mr. David Curry: As the Prime Minister says, this enlargement is merely the prelude to a new enlargement, and we can easily envisage 32 or 33 states in the European Union; but that further enlargement towards the Balkans will raise even more difficult questions because it will introduce income disparities of a factor of 10 between the richest and the poorest members. It is therefore essential that the union begin at an early stage to help the states prepare for membership. What does the Prime Minister think should be done about that? Where does he think that the eastern and south-eastern borders of the European Union properly lie?
The Prime Minister: In respect of the latter point, it is important that we encourage Balkan countries to move towards the prospect of European Union membership. As the right hon. Gentleman implies, that is obviously some way off, and the income disparity is very great. In the meantime, however, the European Union has conducted agreements with most of those countries—in fact, probably all of them—to help them in that process. Again, the advantages for us are immense. This is the first period for years and years—other than during the appalling domination of the old Soviet bloc—when those countries seem to be reaching towards some sort of stability. We have got to encourage that. The way to do it is to help them financially, which the European Union is doing, and also to start, over time, to offer them a more obvious path to European integration.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on the indispensable role that he played at Copenhagen which resulted, among many other achievements, in the accession of two Commonwealth countries to the European Union and in the Turkish timetable, may I thank him for convening the conference with the Palestinians in London next month? May I also thank

549
him for his courage in meeting the President of Syria, as the hazards of peace are much preferable to the death and danger of war?
The Prime Minister: I hope that we can make real progress on political reform. After all, we are only going to get the peace process moving again in the middle east if the right elements are in place. One key element is the political reform process in the Palestinian Authority, and I very much look forward to discussing that with those who will come and contribute to the meeting. I have no doubt that it is better to engage with countries and try to bring them towards the peace process than to isolate them.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: The Prime Minister was absolutely right to say that it is massively in our interests for Turkey to join us as a democratic partner in Europe. Was he not just a little saddened that at an otherwise excellent summit, where so many countries from central Europe joined the European Union, Turkey's application was so badly delayed owing to the behaviour of Germany and France? Will he redouble his efforts to get that application moved forward because, as he knows, Turkey's human rights record is considerably better than that of some of the later applicant countries now entering the EU?
The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had asked me a week ago whether I thought it likely that we would get a firm date for opening the accession negotiations, I would have been doubtful, so we have come a long way in the last few days. It was not only France and Germany that took the position to which he referred. That may be common myth, as many of these things are. In fact that position was taken by France, Germany and probably a significant number of the other countries. It was we, along with the Italians, the Spanish and the Greeks, who argued for a more forward position for Turkey.
Those negotiations are two years away. [Interruption.] The process will start without delay. During our presidency, we began accession negotiations almost immediately, so it is possible that, in this process, Turkey's accession negotiations will start in two years. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Turkey has made great strides forward, but this is still a pretty good timetable. It is not quite as good as we would have liked, but as people in Turkey reflect on it, they will see that after 40 years of trying to get a firm date, they now have one, and it is only two years away.
Ms Gisela Stuart: The Prime Minister would have been justified in making more of the progress made on the European security and defence policy and the way in which the EU and NATO can work together. When it comes to further negotiations on Turkey, may I have his reassurance that we will have objective assessment criteria, such as the Copenhagen criteria, not ones based on the desire of some people in Europe to maintain a European Union of Christian countries?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. The important thing is that the Copenhagen criteria on
550
political and human rights are clear, and we should follow them without fear or favour, treating Turkey exactly the same as any other country. It has no desire to be treated as a special member of the club. One of the great potential benefits of Turkey's membership of the EU is the notion that Europe can welcome in a nation that is predominantly Muslim, especially as almost all EU nations—including certainly our country and many other large countries—already have a significant Muslim population.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the first presidency of the enlarged European Union in 2004 will be a very important job? Will he therefore be allowing his name to go forward?
The Prime Minister: Thank you—I am very happy being the British Prime Minister.
Mr. James Plaskitt: My right hon. Friend was surely right to describe the agreement as redefining the European Union. The EU will be much larger but it will also be very different. Does he agree that the young democracies coming in from the east should be joining state-of-the-art democratic institutions, not ones that are in many cases 40 years old and prone to democratic deficit? Will he use enlargement to help to speed up the process of reform?
The Prime Minister: Yes, it is extremely important that we do so because there is no way Europe can function effectively as a Union of 25 or, as some have pointed out, perhaps 30 countries with the existing rules. The only point that I would make is that people often see this as a battle between the Council, the intergovernmental approach, and the Commission, the Community approach. In fact, we need to strengthen both. We need a strong, independent Commission to drive through processes such as economic reform, but we also need a strong Council, able to handle the management of the affairs of 25 or more nations, to give the EU a strong external voice and to set the agenda for Europe.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Did the French President express appreciation both of the Prime Minister's sycophantic eulogy to him in Paris Match and of the fact that the British Prime Minister should take refugees from Sangatte? Why did the Prime Minister not include in his statement any comment about the immigration implications of enlargement? Why have the British Government decided to waive a transition period on immigration from countries coming into the European Union?
The Prime Minister: First, the President did express appreciation of that eulogy in Paris Match, and I received it gratefully. Secondly, of course we take seriously immigration issues to do with enlargement. However, we took the right decision in being forward—after all, we have been forward on the whole enlargement process. My advice is that that does not pose a great problem for us, and it is far more important to make sure that the enlargement process goes through

551
in those countries. Many of them, such as Poland, will be fighting referendums on that issue, and it is important that they succeed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Just a word of caution after the cheering has ended. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when those visionaries way back in the early 1970s took part in that historic vote to take us into the Common Market, we were promised economies of scale and that we would be able to compete with the rest? If we joined the six, we were told, it would be wonderful. We had the same thing with the Single European Act and Maastricht. When the Union was enlarged to 15, we were told we would be able to trade more effectively. In all that time, they have never bought a cobble of coal from Britain, even though it is the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe.
What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give me that 450 million people in the enlarged Europe will change their ways and buy British goods? Our manufacturing industries have been going to the wall throughout that period. A fortnight ago, the balance of trade deficit was the largest ever. At some point, that must end. All I say to my right hon. Friend is that the summit can be historic in many ways, but it ain't been all that good for people here who are working at the sharp end.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows of my admiration for his general political perspectives on these things—
Mr. Skinner: Unlike the Opposition, I never change my mind.
The Prime Minister: Perhaps we can leave that aside for a moment.
If we were outside the European Union, that would not help our industry. In fact, tariffs would be imposed on our goods going into Europe. My hon. Friend is right that we need to knock down a lot of barriers that still exist—that is extremely important. However, we are better placed to do so if we are inside rather than outside.
Finally, someone famously asked what good has come out of Europe in the past 50 years. I would say peace, security—they are important—and rising prosperity for years and years.
Dr. Julian Lewis: NATO.
The Prime Minister: Yes, of course NATO has played a part, but the European Union has too—[Interruption.] Now I am told that Europe has done nothing in the past 50 years. I know that the alternative leadership has left the Chamber, but I simply tell the Conservative party that until it adopts a sensible attitude on Europe, it will find itself a long way from office.

Bain Report
4.24 pm
The Deputy Prime Minister(Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of the fire service.
This morning Sir George Bain published his final report, "Reducing Risk, Saving Lives". I am sure that the House will want to join me in thanking Sir George and his team—Sir Michael Lyons and Sir Tony Young—for an excellent piece of work and for delivering it on time, as promised. The House will recall that the review's terms of reference were to make recommendations on the future organisation and management of the fire service, and in that context, to look at pay and conditions.
The report recalls that there have been seven or eight major reviews of the fire service going back more than 20 years. As Sir George acknowledges, many of the recommendations contained in those reviews are repeated in the Bain report. However, the report concludes that
"what will really make the difference this time is putting those reforms into practice. That is a challenge which must not be evaded again."
The report describes a service where legislation is out of date, management practice is out of date, and the rules and regulations that govern the overall framework and the day-to-day work of the fire service are old-fashioned and restrictive. It says that despite the best efforts of the firefighters, the
"fact is that too many people in this country die in fires and the number of fires is currently increasing each year".
The report states that the UK has not been as successful as other countries in fire prevention. It concludes that what is needed now is a new system where there is far greater emphasis on preventing fires, and which ensures that the deployment of people and equipment means that they are in the right place at the right time to protect lives.
The report's first and most fundamental recommendation is to move to a system of targeted fire cover that is based on a careful, professional assessment of the real risk of incidents in each local area. At present, fire cover is based on rigid targets for a set number of appliances to attend an incident within a set time. Those targets are defined by property characteristics, rather than the risk to life. The targets apply day and night, during the week and at weekends, irrespective of the predictable daily changes to the level of incidents actually taking place. In the most extreme example, the targets lead to the situation in the City of London where there are the same number of firefighters on duty at night, when there are just 5,000 overnight residents, as during the day, when there are 500,000 people working in the area. That is not the most effective deployment of resources. But above all, as the Bain report concludes:
"The existing framework of risk categorisation does not reflect known risk factors. It directs resources away from areas and population groups at most risk."
Secondly, the report makes recommendations on better collaborative working. At present, there are 47 fire authorities in England. They rarely work in partnership. Better collaboration between fire authorities, and between fire authorities and other

553
emergency services, is common sense and would be more efficient. In Wales, for example, bureaucracy has been cut by reducing the number of brigades from eight to three, with no reduction in the number of fire stations or fire engines.
Thirdly, the report makes recommendations on working practices, where the fire service has fallen well behind other public services. This includes dealing with the fact that only 1.5 per cent. of firefighters are drawn from the ethnic minorities, only 1.7 per cent. of firefighters are women, and only 2 per cent. of firefighters are graduates. The report concludes that urgent action is required to tackle these problems.
In addition to these important recommendations for the fire authorities and the fire service, there is a raft of equally important recommendations for the Government. The Bain report recommends the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. Section 19 means that any reduction in the number of fire appliances or firefighting posts, or closure of any fire station, requires the Secretary of State's consent. That situation places detailed control of the fire service in Whitehall and makes modernisation on the ground far more difficult.
The report recommends primary and secondary legislation to modernise the fire service institutions; to deal with the difficulties arising from the discipline regulations, and the appointment and promotion regulations; and to bring fire authorities' statutory duties in line with a modernised fire service. The report also makes recommendations to improve the inspection and delivery of services, and to establish a new central organisation to drive forward the process of modernisation.
Many of the report's recommendations to the Government will require detailed consideration, but we have been looking at these issues for some time and we have given further detailed consideration since the publication of the interim Bain position paper on 11 November. Today, with the publication of the final Bain report, I can set out the steps that the Government will take to put into effect the Bain recommendations.
First, the Government accept the recommendation to repeal section 19 of the 1947 Act and we will do so at the earliest opportunity, as requested. Secondly, we accept in principle the report's recommendations for legislation to modernise the fire service, to improve inspection and delivery of services and to set up a new central body to drive forward modernisation. Thirdly, I am committing the Government to produce a White Paper on the fire service in the spring in order to fulfil our part of the programme of modernisation. The White Paper will set out in detail the legislative and other changes required.
That is a clear programme of reform that will be taken forward immediately and will sustain the drive to modernise the framework in which the fire service operates. My guiding principle will be to transform the fire service into a modern emergency fire and rescue service focused on the safety of people and communities. That is what modernisation is about. Some of it will save money, but some of it will cost money, including, for example, training in basic life support skills and providing life-saving equipment for firefighters.
554
The primary objective will be to improve the safety of the public and create a fire service that can deliver the highest standards.
The modernisation of the fire service forms part of the Government's broader agenda to reform, modernise and invest in Britain's public services. We must not lose sight of the fact that the fire service is a local authority service that is paid for out of local authority budgets. Schools, refuse collection and other local authority services are subject to review and audit through the new system of comprehensive performance assessments. The Bain report recommends further discussion on the introduction of a similar system for fire authorities that would ensure a comprehensive approach to audit for the milestones that it sets out.
With permission, I shall now turn to Sir George Bain's recommendations on pay and conditions. In May, the Fire Brigades Union tabled a claim for a 40 per cent. increase in firefighters' pay and a 50 per cent. increase in pay for control room staff. That remains its position today. That has to be seen against the background of the recent local authority pay award of 7.8 per cent. over two years and the 8 per cent. over two years accepted by the Transport and General Workers Union leadership for airport firefighters.
The Bain report commissioned two studies to compare pay for fire service roles with pay for jobs of similar weight elsewhere in the economy. The report concludes in paragraph 8.19 that there is no case for significant increases in pay based on the existing pay system. However, it calls for a new reward structure that is fit for a modernised fire service, following on from reforms. The Government's response to the FBU's claim has been guided by two clear principles: first, our hard-won economic stability should not be put at risk; and secondly, any pay award must be affordable within existing public expenditure provision. The Bain report's recommendations comply with those two principles and give a fair deal to the firefighters and the public who pay for them.
In line with the Bain review's interim position paper, the final report proposes an 11.3 per cent. pay increase over two years, subject to the implementation of the common-sense reforms that it sets out. The report does not rule out further pay increases in future, but as with the 11.3 per cent. increase, any increases would be subject to the implementation of the modernisation programme set out in the report.
The package proposed by Sir George could mean that an ordinary firefighter could earn around £23,900 a year by November 2003; that a leading firefighter could earn up to £26,700 a year; and that a leading firefighter in London could earn up to £29,300 a year by the same time. The Bain report makes it clear that a two-year pay deal of that order would not be self-financing over two years, but that if modernisation is fully implemented, it could be self-financing over a three-year period.
The local government employers have made it plain to me that they will find it difficult to fund any up-front investment to pay for future modernisation. In keeping with the proposals set out in the Bain report, the Government accept that it may be necessary to provide a small amount of transitional funding over the next two years in order to make it possible for a three-year self-financing deal to be agreed. That funding would be

555
within the existing departmental expenditure limits and would be subject to a satisfactory pay and modernisation agreement and adequate provision for implementing and auditing the modernisation process.
The new pay and career structure proposed in the Bain report will open up new opportunities for firefighters at all levels to develop their skills and increase their income. The report's modernisation agenda will provide a better, safer service to the public. Some brigades, such as the Devon and Mid and West Wales brigades, already carry defibrillators. Why should not others do so? In Warwickshire, ambulance and fire control room staff already share the same building. Why should not other brigades do the same? In some areas, local arrangements are in place for part-time and full-time firefighters to work together. Why should that not be more widespread? It does not mean compulsory redundancies. It does not mean tearing up the shift system. But it does mean a more efficient use of resources, more flexible terms and conditions for firefighters, and tackling the current inadequacies of management. It also means enabling better collaboration to take place between individual fire brigades and the Fire Service and other public services. Exactly how that will be achieved is a matter for negotiation between the employers and the FBU.
The FBU and the local government employers are now engaged in exploratory talks with ACAS. I am pleased that, in the light of those ongoing talks, the FBU has called off the eight-day strike that was scheduled to start today, but I regret the FBU's decision to call further strikes for the new year, which can only cause disruption and put people's lives at risk. The Government believe that the ACAS discussions should take the recommendations and proposals in the Bain report fully into account, as well as the principles set out in my letter to Sir Jeremy Beecham on 28 November. That will mean some tough talking; but further strikes will achieve nothing.
Throughout this dispute, I have urged the FBU to talk, not walk. I recognise that the union has set its face against the Bain changes, but change is on its way, and the FBU cannot set its face against that. It is now time for it to start talking seriously.
The Bain report says
"With clear vision, commitment and leadership, the programme of reform is achievable. The prizes are considerable, including a better service for the public and a more rewarding career for the men and women in the Service. Most of all, the package of reforms should save lives."
The report is a challenge to all of us—the Government, the fire authorities and fire service personnel—but it is a challenge that the Government are determined to meet. The report provides a fair deal for the firefighters, a fair deal for other workers and a fair deal for the economy. Above all, it will provide a better service for the people of this country. I commend it to the House.
David Davis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and for giving me notice of it. I thank him particularly for making the Bain report available to the House well in advance. There is much to welcome in the report, and I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the members of the review body. Subject, of course, to proper scrutiny in the House, we will do what we can to expedite the primary legislation that he mentioned.
556
An 11 per cent. rise in firefighters' pay over two years, coupled with radical modernisation of their working practices, is the main proposal in the Bain report. Will the Deputy Prime Minister say in more detail how he and the employers intend to pay for such a wage increase? He talked of a small amount of transitional funding, but back in November the Prime Minister insisted that any pay rise of more than 4 per cent. must be self-financing. Is that still the case?
Paragraph 8.22.ii of the report says
"We recommend that the paybill should increase from November 2003 by 7 per cent."
It is notable that Bain uses the word "paybill", by which we must assume he means total pay-related costs. That implies that little or no savings will be made by November 2003. Is my understanding correct? If so, this indicates a transitional cost of more than £60 million.
The Deputy Prime Minister said last time that the primary source of funding for a pay deal was likely to be manpower reduction based on the retirement of some 20 per cent. of firefighters in the next few years. He said, I think, that that amounted to 10,000 jobs. Unless early retirement is involved—which would cost money rather than releasing it—it will take some time for the manpower reduction to happen.
Professor Bain seems to assume that the arrangement will be introduced after 2003. That means a gap between any pay settlement and the work pattern changes needed to fund it. I understand that the professor largely confirmed that on the radio today. Transitional funding is, as the Deputy Prime Minister has effectively admitted, crucial to concluding the negotiation. The Chancellor, who is present, has said that absolutely no money will be available for the deal; the Prime Minister has said "nothing over 4 per cent."; the Deputy Prime Minister has been more conciliatory, saying "We are quite prepared to make an exceptional case". Now, he is set to provide a small amount of transitional funding. After waiting three months for the report, will he tell us how much the amount will be?
The report makes it clear that the fire service must take a radically different approach to ensure that fewer people die as a result of fire. The Deputy Prime Minister properly talked about that at some length. We all know the importance of the job that firefighters undertake, and we congratulate them on doing it. However, the report states that the overall strategic approach concentrates on firefighting, not on fire prevention, and it argues that that strategy should be reversed to concentrate on prevention. Indeed, the report is subtitled, "Reducing Risk, Saving Lives". In the light of that, will the Government, when assessing any changes in work practices in the settlement, try to achieve an improvement in cover, safety and service levels? Will they make public the improved safety levels that they seek?
Although it is difficult to make comparisons, other European countries with a similar climate and culture—the Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria—have much lower death rates than the United Kingdom. If we achieved the same rates as the Swiss or the Dutch, we would save about 300 lives a year. The report shows that New Zealand, which had the same level of fatalities as us four years ago, has halved the death rate from fires. Again, that is equivalent to 300 lives a year in the UK.

557
Although hon. Members would understand the Deputy Prime Minister's discomfort in setting himself another five-year target, will he use the opportunity that the reorganisation of the fire service provides to commit the Government to saving 300 lives a year or an equivalent target?
The scope for cost savings in some fire brigades is much greater than in others, nevertheless, all brigades will have to meet the costs of the new pay structure. How will the Government equalise that disparity so that they do not penalise previously efficient fire brigades, especially those in rural areas with retained firefighters? Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the scope for savings in rural areas that use retained firefighters is relatively small, and that the price of Bain should not be the closure of fire stations in rural areas?
In his interim report, Bain said that clearer national leadership must complement negotiation. One of the recurrent problems that worsened the dispute was the failure of communication between the Deputy Prime Minister's Office and the employers. Will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that his office takes direct control of the negotiations so that the Government may exercise a veto over the financing of any deal and the acceptability of changes in work practices?
The report clearly states that the Government rather than the Bain review must decide whether to restrict the right to strike for such an important public service. Has the Deputy Prime Minister held any talks about that? What is his opinion and that of Downing street on the matter?
We have heard much in the past couple of weeks about talks at ACAS. We understand that no new offer is currently on the table, and the Bain report was not published until today. No hon. Members want any more fire strikes. Will the Deputy Prime Minister spell out the progress of the negotiations at ACAS and his expectations for a deal in the near future?
I hope that the publication of the Bain report means that the continuing talks can be conducted expeditiously. I also hope that the Deputy Prime Minister can get a grip on matters, take personal control of the negotiations and not lose an hour in pursuing a financially responsible outcome to the dispute.
What is the timetable for the negotiations in the next few critical weeks? The Bain report will be effected, the dispute ended and true reforms that reduce risk and save lives achieved only if the Deputy Prime Minister takes a grip on matters.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful for the comments of support, such as they were, at the beginning of the contribution of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). As for taking a grip, I remind him that Lord Belstead was the Home Office Minister in 1980 who made the same sort of recommendations to the Home Office review as those of the Bain report. The Tory Government did not take much of a grip to implement their review. Fifteen years later, in 1995, the Audit Commission report made the same points and again the Government failed to act. I shall therefore take no lectures from a Tory Member of Parliament when, in 18 years, the Tory Administration failed to do anything about the matter.
558
We are now trying to do what Sir George Bain is asking us to do, which is to make the commitment to implement, rather than making promises and doing nothing about them. I have already mentioned some important changes in regard to accepting the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. Everybody knows that, for negotiations to take place, we have to make changes to some of the legislative requirements, and I have immediately given that commitment.
Many of the right hon. Gentleman's questions will be answered in our White Paper, but I shall address some of the points that he has raised. I have some sympathy with his point about the confusion over the figures, because I face some of that confusion myself. The problem here is that the financial year relating to the costs and savings that have been referred to runs from April to April, whereas the pay negotiations cover a period from November to November, part of which would therefore be in one financial year and part in another. I can send the right hon. Gentleman a more detailed statement of those figures, if he likes. The statement makes it clear, however, that the net cost savings mean that the proposed programme could fund itself over three years but not over two, in terms of the extra costs required, and in relation to the modernisation and the savings that can be made. That could be done in three years, but it is right to say that the recommended deal could not fund itself over a two-year period. There is no doubt about that, and I have made it clear to the employers.
It is not my intention to take over the negotiations. We are doing exactly what every other Government have done; they have pointed out what their public pay policy is. That policy applies to everyone in all the local authority sectors, as well as to all other public sector workers. In these circumstances, no extra payments over and above those that are catered for in the public pay policy—or indeed, the 4 per cent. that has been granted—will be paid without modernisation. The employers have to show me—I believe that they have already made a statement this morning—that they intend, in view of the Bain recommendations, to produce a robust business report, which will be given to us, detailing how they might achieve this. That is the best way of dealing with this issue. The employers can now take into account what Bain has said.
The ACAS discussions are welcome because, although one party has refused to co-operate on Bain, those discussions have brought the parties together to listen to the case and discuss its implications. If ACAS can provide us with an opportunity in which the parties are prepared to talk, I do not mind if the agenda for change is achieved under ACAS or Bain, so long as the same principles apply. As I said in my statement, I wish ACAS well in its endeavours to get people to agree to both the modernisation and the increase in pay that will be justified by the changes. Let me also make it clear that the moneys will not come from the reserves or from the Chancellor. I have been very clear that this is my responsibility; these are the moneys that I have within my Department, so anything that needs to be found will have to come from my budget and not from the Chancellor or from extra money from the reserves. That has always been clear, and I am glad to be able to confirm that.

559
I have already said that it is not my job to get involved in negotiating deal upon deal. If Governments attempted to negotiate pay agreements in every sector, it would create a highly centralised arrangement. In the main, most Governments have liked to leave the negotiations on local services to local people, and that has been the general principle that we have adopted. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion comes from an Opposition who are constantly talking about giving power down to the local areas, rather than centralising it. So be it. This dispute illustrates their constant conflict of judgment in such matters.
On the White Paper, mention has been made of comparisons with other firefighting facilities—in New Zealand, for example—and the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Dutch and Swiss services. The inquiry has pointed out that there are differences, and that obviously has to be taken into account. The fire services that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned have shift systems. I want to make it clear that nothing in our proposals would abolish the shift system, or some of the other practices that have gone with it, in relation to second jobs, for example. Those conditions apply in most of the fire services throughout the world, but let me make it clear that we need some changes: changes are necessary and we intend to embark on them. The fire authorities in the different countries to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have modernised and changed. They accept overtime and also do some of the things that we have recommended. I do not think that it is too much to ask that the British firefighting service should face up to the same challenge, which we believe will provide a better service.
Mr. Harry Barnes: What time frame is attached to the Fire Brigades Union's demand for 40 per cent? We heard the Opposition talking about five-year targets. It strikes me that it would be possible to engage in a long-term deal that moved the figure, perhaps not to 40 per cent., but to one that would satisfy the FBU, especially if the discussions took place around Bain, because a lot of complex matters have been put before us.
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that there are many complex issues here, but I must say that the factual answer to his question is that the FBU wanted the 40 per cent. to be paid in one year, and no strings. That was totally unacceptable, although as I understand it that remains the claim before us. If there is an alternative, I hope that the FBU will take account of Bain. It can improve its wage scales, but that will happen through the negotiations with the local authorities.
Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement and join him in thanking Professor Sir George Bain and his colleagues for the excellent work in the report.
The Deputy Prime Minister is right to regret the fact that the FBU leadership appears to have set its face against change and appears to be planning to go ahead with strikes in the new year, but does he agree that the FBU's dismissive response to the publication of Bain today is as depressing as it is predictable? Does he also recognise that Bain's review is as challenging to the Government and fire authorities as it is to the FBU?
560
Specifically on funding the pay proposals, the Deputy Prime Minister says that he will provide a small amount of transitional funding. Will he say more about what figure he has in mind? Is it the £29 million that Bain identifies on page 119 in table 12.1 as the gap between costs and savings over the first three years or does the Deputy Prime Minister have another figure in mind? If he is prepared to provide about £29 million, will he tell the House exactly how and in what form he intends to supply that money? In particular, will he ensure that fire authorities that have already reaped cost savings are not penalised just because they have completed modernisation? Does he not agree that it would be wrong to burden modernising fire authorities and their taxpayers with all the extra costs when they have fewer opportunities to reap efficiencies? Will he therefore ensure that extra central Government cash is carefully distributed and targeted to reward the leaders of modernisation?
Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that Bain is good news for retained firefighters, just as it should be? Does he agree that one of the most welcome proposals in Bain is to give proper advocacy and representation to the Retained Firefighters Union, which, up to now, has been pushed out by the FBU? Does he agree that, if there is a weakness in the Bain review, it is the failure to recommend an even better pay deal for retained firefighters, as there is a serious 20 per cent. plus vacancy rate for retained positions?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister make it clear to those whose job it is to complete the negotiations that they should ensure that the retained firefighters are not betrayed simply because they have not been represented at the table and have been prepared to work and modernise?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether he disagrees with any of Bain's recommendations? Does he support, like us, the proposals to regionalise fire authorities and to back local pay top-ups? On Bain's observations on central Government's emergency planning role, does he accept Bain's statement that
"further substantial funds will be required"
and when can we expect an announcement on that?
Finally, what assurance can the Deputy Prime Minister give the House that this latest fire service review will be implemented?
The Deputy Prime Minister: If I may, I will take the hon. Gentleman's last question first. I thank him for his support, but let me make it clear that I do not want anybody to be under any misapprehension whatever—I intend to see the report implemented. It is a report to take into account in the negotiations.
The Bain report is not specific about every part of this deal; it says that its function is not to settle a dispute, but to give some guidance, an up-to-date position and recommendations on how modernisation and pay can be brought together. We fully accept that principle. I am sad that the FBU has said that the Bain report is irrelevant. I do not think it is; it is very relevant to the discussion.
As the FBU has made its position clear and as it is now in discussions at ACAS, it would be useful if it took into account, as the employers will surely point out to it, how modernisation is connected to pay. That, again,

561
depends very much on how much money the Government are prepared to give. The hon. Gentleman referred to the table in the report, which shows that the deal can pay for itself, but in three years. Money can be gained in the third year. Therefore, a judgment would have to be made as to the transitional funds, but let me be absolutely clear: there will be no funds available at all if nobody undertakes any modernisation.
This is not a deal where people go ahead, as has happened every time in the past, even under the previous Administration, without doing anything about the recommendations. The FBU has to recognise that, in these circumstances, modernisation is connected to extra payments. That connection is relevant to the Government and relevant to everyone else. I hope that the fire brigade takes that on board. It is an important part of the deal, if the fire brigade is prepared to negotiate on those terms.
The Bain report makes it clear that a lot more should be done to give part-time or retained workers proper parity of pay and also, perhaps, that there should be a recognition of that when considering the pension fund. Bain makes special recommendations on that, which we will have to take on board, and we will give our responses in the White Paper.
Of course, that would mean having mixed crews, which was another recommendation, but the FBU has always set its face against it. I am told that it is against the idea because it offends against its overtime ban. The ban creates real problems in itself. It is there to prevent people from taking extra resources or gaining extra payment, whereas firefighters elsewhere in the world can earn overtime. The FBU is against second jobs, although a lot of its members have them. I find it odd that it denies firemen the opportunity to do a second job as a part-time fire worker. After all, that is what they are trained for. It is odd that a firefighter can have a second job as a taxi driver but cannot help to provide a decent fire service by working overtime. It is precisely such absurdities that we have to deal with.
Mr. John McFall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the personal denigration of George Bain by the FBU? He is a committed public servant with whom I have worked, and a man of the utmost integrity. Will my right hon. Friend develop initiatives to engage the ordinary, decent firemen on the ground, so that the much-needed change to the fire service can be implemented, and we can help to find the £7 billion that it costs to save lives today—and save lives in the process, which we have not been too good at to date?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree strongly about the denigration of George Bain by the FBU, which has been quite powerful. It is totally unacceptable. He is a public servant who carried out the inquiry with great commitment. The denigration is not new—it has gone on constantly, and been directed not only at Sir George but at other members of his committee. I think that most of us in the House would agree that that is unacceptable.
My hon. Friend talks about persuading the decent firemen. I do not differentiate between decent and non-decent firemen—and I am sure that he does not either.
562
All the firefighters are trying to do a job, and the union is trying, in many cases, to reflect its members views, but I hope that firefighters who are following our discussions and reading about what is going on will get involved, read the Bain report and come to a judgment on whether we need a better balance in the fire service, concentrating more on prevention rather than intervention. Sir George has done an excellent job in giving us the properly recorded argument on which to base the debate. Calling that irrelevant is not the way to get agreement, and I hope that the rest of the firemen will take that into account and start negotiations.
Mr. Francis Maude: The Bain report contains some sensible recommendations, and I hope that they will be implemented. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree, however, that it fails to tackle the principle archaism that cries out for reform: the quaint idea that there is a single model of providing a fire service that is equally applicable in every part of the country, and the equally outdated notion that a single rate of pay is appropriate everywhere? If he really wants to be radical and to achieve modernisation, why does not he look for a way of seriously decentralising, so that local fire authorities can negotiate pay directly with their local employees, and get rid of the wholly outdated notion of a national pay structure?
The Deputy Prime Minister: When the right hon. Gentleman reads the Bain report in closer detail, he will see that it does talk of the need to have a decentralised service. Indeed, it goes further and says that in the fourth strand of change consideration should be given to the concept of regionalism. On different rates of pay, or different services in rural or urban areas, clearly one framework does not suit all. Indeed, Bain says that there could be differences in those different circumstances. I think that he is advocating not different wages in different places, but differences in allowances and agreements to reflect the differing demands. He certainly takes into account the high number of applications for jobs in the fire service.
John McDonnell: If Bain is implemented, what will be the estimated total number of firefighter posts in 2005–06, and what is the estimated cost of introducing the recommended reforms to the financial arrangements for the pension fund?
The Deputy Prime Minister: In all these cases, everything depends on the state of negotiations between the employers and the employees. On jobs, as Bain has constantly and rightly pointed out, there is no need for compulsory redundancies. Many mischievous statements have been made in this House, but it is quite wrong to suggest that the result will be a great deal of unemployment.
On costs, again, the issue is the negotiations between the employers and the employees. As the table to which we have been referring shows, what matters is just how much modernisation the Fire Brigades Union is prepared to undertake. I simply say to the FBU that it should get involved in those negotiations. Perhaps my hon. Friend has received a copy of the recent paper from the FBU, which puts forward some of its views on these matters. It deals with very serious issues, and I hope that

563
Members will read it. It is a pity that it did not give that evidence to the Bain inquiry, because it contains some very good arguments. I hope that it will give that information to ACAS, so that we can take it into account. However, at the end of the day the FBU must recognise that a connection will be made between modernisation and pay.
On the likely cost of pensions, again, that depends on exactly what happens and how many people take early retirement. As Bain points out, the cost of the pension system is leading to difficulties. If that system is to be extended to part-time fireworkers—that is one recommendation—a serious study needs to be undertaken. In 1995, the Audit Commission recommended that the true costs of the pension fund should be reassessed. We cannot make that estimate at the moment, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that such a survey will have to be undertaken. Work is under way in that regard.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I wish the right hon. Gentleman success in implementing these reforms, but does he agree that any truly modern fire service should be unable to hold the nation to ransom, and would have a no-strike, binding arbitration agreement as part of such a settlement?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that this House would want industrial peace in all areas, and for matters to be settled by negotiation to the satisfaction of all parties. That is something that we would all strive to achieve. We have received some criticism for perhaps not being as tough as the Opposition would like, but I should point out that, of the 36 days of strikes that were planned, only 12 have taken place. We must wait and see what happens, but if we had rushed in by using legislation and taking the sort of action that is being talked about, we would have inflamed the situation, difficulties would have arisen and I doubt whether we would have reached the position that we have reached today. We have to make a balanced judgment about the use of legislation and getting the best out of negotiations; we have given our best judgment, and so far that has proved reasonably successful.
Mr. Russell Brown: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Bain recommendations before the House today are not news to firefighters. From day one, they have regarded Bain as delivering nothing more than a long-standing firemaster's wish agenda. How optimistic, confident or otherwise is he that he will get the FBU to sit down and look at these proposals?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Bain's proposals constitute his independent judgment, having looked at the evidence over a number of years, of what he thinks is the best way to provide a modernised fire service. They are to the advantage of everyone—to the fireworkers, to the firefighters and, indeed, to the country at large—and they equate to the principles that we laid down. The proposals constitute a very important step towards trying to achieve change, but as my hon. Friend rightly points out, they are not new. Bain scoured the many directly relevant reports—there are some eight or 10—and pointed out that, although they rightly praise the FBU for the provision of a good service, they make the
564
common claim that modernisation is still necessary because certain restrictions prevent the provision of a better service. That is the judgment that we use, and Bain makes an important contribution to it.
Hywel Williams: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that specific issues arise in rural areas—particularly in Scotland and in Wales—and that there is little scope to renegotiate pay and conditions in those areas? Does he also accept that, as a result of the report, we still face strikes in the new year, at a time when there is real concern about the coverage provided by the green goddesses in those areas?
The Deputy Prime Minister: There is a distinct difference, which has already been recognised in the provision of fire services in rural and urban areas, and the targets reflect that. However, we recognise that in the main, particularly in the rural areas, cover is mainly carried out by part-time, not full-time workers, who believe it unjust that they do not get paid the same rate as full-time firefighters. The Bain report has said that that needs to be changed and that changes will also need to be made to the pension funds to reflect that. The Government will consider those recommendations and give their response in the White Paper to be published in the spring.
The union has made it clear that there will be another dispute. I am glad that it is a number of weeks away because it allows the armed forces to have a break, particularly during the festive season. The legal advice given to me is that it is not necessary to maintain the strike envelope; presumably it is there to add to the pressure. We are constantly under pressure, and those that apply it should bear it in mind that it is our intention to carry out modernisation; we will not avoid it as has happened in the past. We are committed to making the change.
Jonathan Shaw: May I welcome the statement and my right hon. Friend's comments about transitional funding? Does he agree that there are varying practices up and down the country and that many brigades have implemented changes such as community fire safety? The Kent brigade has been in the vanguard of reducing the number of deaths and house fires. To assist with the negotiations, can I ask for clarification, because some of the language used has been misunderstood by FBU members? [Interruption.] This is a question. On paramedical training, for example, some people have asked me whether the Government believe that fire brigades should undertake ambulance training for four years or is my right hon. Friend talking more about defibrillators? I think that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I think that that will do.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am aware of the great improvements to the Kent fire brigade from talking to the leader of Kent's Tory authority, Sandy Bruce-Lockhart. He gave me some examples of co-operation between members and fire officers that has reduced the number of deaths and accidents quite considerably in the past three years. I would not want to give the House the impression that improvements are not being made to

565
the system—clearly there are, with the co-operation of all parties. It shows how much can be achieved if people are prepared to do that, although it is a pity that it usually happens within the local brigade area, not nationally. Our point is that we need to raise national standards.
On the provision of defibrillators, that is a very important point. It takes five or six years to train people to become paramedics and it is an insult not to recognise their true skills. However, it is silly that we can have defibrillators in some areas but not in others. As I understand it, they are supposed to be there only to assist the firefighters themselves. It is nonsense that such a facility is not available to all areas of the community at all times. I know that the fire service finds this controversial, but I saw a study that said that if defibrillators were available and approved for the general public, the response time of the fire service could be increased so that it was better than that of the ambulance service, which is under pressure. If we had the same rate of response at the fire brigade level, it could save many thousands of lives. That is the sort of modernising proposal that will cost us money, but it is for the benefit of the community and I think that we should do it.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to change the Fire Services Act 1947 by bringing forward amendments to the Local Government Bill which begins its passage in the House on 7 January?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The legislation will be available to us; we will be looking at what we can do in regard to that and I shall be responding shortly.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that ordinary firemen should not adopt a kneejerk response to statements about the Bain report but study it in the watches and at the stations, identify how they can make it work for them and their families and then instruct the negotiators to get them the best deal possible? In that context, will he continue to promote a calm and decent atmosphere that is conducive to sensible negotiations?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the House will agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. The reaction of people in the fire service who listen to the debate or who watch it on television, where we have received so much publicity of late, is most important. We are not making a major attack and completely scrapping the shift system, as has been said. Of course, such reports cause great concern to fire brigades. What we are saying is that some changes are common sense and should be considered. Every fire brigade should have a 24-hour-a-day watch system and we want to keep such a system, but changes can be made. Some of them have been highlighted today and I hope that there can be a decent discussion of them among members of fire brigades.
Mr. Paul Tyler: This afternoon, the Deputy Prime Minister made several references to
566
the fact that many of the modernisation proposals in the Bain report have already been accepted—indeed, embraced—by fire brigades in different parts of the country, not least in Cornwall and Devon. Does he accept that it would be widely resented among firefighters in those more forward-thinking brigades if the new money is used as a bribe for the backward brigades rather than to recognise and reward those that have already taken steps to accept modernisation?
The Deputy Prime Minister: We are concerned to ensure that the savings are of benefit everywhere. As I pointed out, advances have already been made in some aspects—for example, combined control rooms. We want those advances to take place throughout the system. Where modernisation proposals have been implemented, it will not be necessary to make changes, but we want to raise standards in the fire service nationally so that they are acceptable to everyone, in line with Bain, and so that they justify the payments. Areas where changes have already been made will receive the increased payments.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most interesting and important part of his statement was the new provision that referred to transitional funding, up-front, to resolve the modernisation question? Some of us raised that matter during a previous statement from my right hon. Friend; that is important in itself. I shall not ask—as the Tories did—how much money my right hon. Friend has in his budget although I hope that it is not a small amount. I hope the sum is big enough.
Whatever my right hon. Friend does, I ask him not to accept the proposal made earlier by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) that we should introduce regional pay scales, which, by the way, was a Liberal proposition. If we accepted that proposal, the present dispute would look like a vicarage tea party.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's argument about regional pay scales, but there should be some discussion of it. There is a national wage for fire brigades, but allowances vary in different areas; for example, London weighting can add about £2,000 to the wage. We should have some discussion of that. The FBU should not say that such things are irrelevant; it should discuss matters that affect its members' wages.
On previous occasions, I could not be specific about transitional funding or the amounts involved because they depended on the costs and savings that could be made. Bain has now given some indication of those amounts. People accused me of sabotaging the agreement at 5 o'clock in the morning, even though I had made it clear at 3 o'clock to both the general secretary of the TUC and the employers' negotiators that I could not sign a blank cheque. However, one of the difficulties was that they did not know what savings could be made; in 25 years, the possible savings had never been worked out. Some joint work has now been carried out between Bain, ourselves and the local authority employers and I can now say how much we would save if the proposals were implemented.
An awful lot of work was needed but the principle is clear. Transitional payments will need to be agreed for a three-year period, but I cannot enter into any agreement

567
unless there is a modernisation agreement that will take us to year three. I am not prepared to make the same mistakes that were made time and again whereby there was agreement on pay first and then talk about modernisation. This time, the two must happen together.
Mr. Mark Francois: I welcome the particular recommendation in Bain that enhanced terms and conditions should be made available for our retained firefighters. We all want a successfully negotiated end to the dispute, but will the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to our retained firefighters? They provide critically important cover in our rural areas and many of them continued to provide emergency cover during periods when the regulars were on strike.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I want to pay tribute to all those who have been involved in maintaining our services—whether the part-time firefighters, the Army or the police, all of whom have provided quite an effective service in the most difficult circumstances. Many part-timers are involved in the dispute and support the FBU case, but all the firefighters—part-time or full-time—need to get together and say, "Change is coming, and now is the time to take part in it." They should start talking, not walking, and let us get an agreement to this dispute.
Fiona Mactaggart: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that if there are flaws in the Bain report, they are largely caused by the FBU's decision not to participate in that report? Will he ensure that, as the negotiations progress, the real recruitment and retention difficulties faced by brigades on the borders of London, which do not benefit from the London allowance, are considered? That situation is practically unique in this country. If he is considering primary legislation, will he also consider whether it should extend to improving fire safety in new buildings, as well as modernising the fire service?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend refers to improving the fire regulations, and we certainly want to do that—indeed, legislation on improving building regulations in that way is already before the House—but we need to take a much more comprehensive approach. That is behind the concept of wanting more prevention rather than intervention. A point was made about Kent fire brigade being actively involved in fire prevention—something that the FBU has always supported, and we need to see more of it. That is the balance and change that we are trying to achieve.
As for whether there are flaws in the report, I shall listen to those views, but I think that it is a pretty comprehensive and good report. It is based on the many reports over the past 20 years that have not been acted upon, and it was wrong for the union not to participate and, indeed, to set its face against the report. The point now is whether the union representatives are sitting down, discussing with the employers and negotiating how to reach a settlement. That is still the case at the moment, and we should encourage that.

Points of Order
5.17 pm
Mr. Tim Collins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had any indication today of whether the Secretary of State for Transport is willing to make a statement to the House on the shocking press reports on Friday and Sunday that he proposes to abandon the targets on reducing road congestion and increasing passenger numbers introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister and, furthermore, that he proposes to cut public subsidy in a way that will ensure fewer trains and higher fares. Is not such a statement important to put right the indication from the Downing street press office this morning that tomorrow's statement will be only a written statement, as I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would expect such an important matter to discussed on the Floor of the House and dealt with properly?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I have no indication that a statement of the kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests is about to be made at the moment.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you whether the Speaker would consider issuing a fatwa to Ministers who fail to answer their correspondence in a timely manner—a matter that I have raised with the occupant of the Chair on several occasions? This morning, I received a reply to a letter that I had addressed to the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety on 6 September. The letter has been chased up on any number of occasions, and I finally received a reply not from the Minister himself, but from a private secretary, four months late. That is not only impertinent to my constituents, but rude to Parliament. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, raise this matter with the Speaker and find out whether he will issue more general instructions to Ministers about the generally lamentable way in which they answer correspondence?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has made his views on that matter clear on a number of occasions. He agrees very much with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and, no doubt, Ministers will have heard him put it on the record again.
Mr. John Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If Mr. Speaker is unable to get the response that my hon. Friend seeks, will he seek a concession from Ministers so that they issue a series of apology notices that Members of Parliament can send out to make it clear that, when constituents do not get a proper reply, it is because the Minister, not the Member of Parliament, has been dilatory?
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you do make a ruling such as the right hon. Gentleman has just

569
requested, will you make it retrospective to the last Conservative Government, including former Secretaries of State for the Environment in that Government?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have said, Mr. Speaker has made his position clear on this matter. I am sure that he would not want to become involved with the specific details of ministerial replies.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    PENSIONS (WINDING-UP)
    Mr. Frank Field, supported by Mr. Derek Wyatt, Mr. Kevin Brennan, Vernon Coaker, David Wright and Mr. Andrew Miller, presented a Bill to provide for the distribution of the assets of pension schemes on winding-up and the duties of trustees in relation thereto; to make provision relating to the fees chargeable in relation to the process of winding-up a pension scheme; to establish arrangements for a compensation scheme for certain members of occupational schemes, including for the establishment of a levy on pension schemes; and to establish a review of the status of pensions-related liabilities in insolvency; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed. [Bill 36].
Orders of the Day

  Hunting Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. The House will be aware that Mr. Speaker has put a limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches today, and it would be greatly appreciated by the House in general if Front-Bench spokesmen could also limit their contributions to a reasonable length to allow as many Back Benchers as possible to take part in today's very important debate.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you remind the House what the rules are on interventions, and what is the impact of interventions on the eight-minute limit?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, I will again tell the House how this works. The first intervention that a Member accepts does not count against his time, and he is allowed an extra minute on the end of his speech. The same applies for a second intervention—the intervener's time does not apply, and the hon. Member is allowed a second minute on the end of his speech. After that, there are no allowances at all.
  5.22 pm
  The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of this Bill is to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the long-running and contentious issue of hunting with dogs. Some people have congratulated me on achieving the impossible: creating a sort of unity by getting both sides in the debate to express initial opposition to my Bill. I am told that I have demonstrated a special talent.
  In fact, such opposition is almost inevitable when entering a debate that has been raging for decades, in which both sides have been in campaigning mode for years, and where hon. Members have made personal commitments to one side or the other. Each person is looking for a Bill that enshrines his or her beliefs in law, and will take some persuading that they should consider supporting anything that differs from the Bill for which they last voted.
  I need say little about the Conservative amendment because it says little that is helpful or true. The Conservatives talk about the rights and legitimate interests of minorities, but have they forgotten how their party devastated the rights and interests of minorities and majorities alike, and how rural communities suffered as well as urban communities? That is why Labour now represents some 180 rural and semi-rural constituencies. The Conservatives claim to be concerned about restrictions on individual freedom. Do they really demand the freedom to be cruel to animals? Is that how low the Conservatives have sunk?
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way at such an early

  571
  stage. Ignoring for the moment the intellectually obtuse remark that he has just made about licensing cruelty, would he tell us, as he dismisses the amendment, which parts of it he considers to be true?
  Alun Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have to suggest to me something that might qualify. The amendment is barely reasoned, and certainly not reasonable.
  Since I first took on this job, I have been clear with everyone that my task is to put before the House a proposal that deals with the issue in a way that is based on the right principles tested against evidence, that will make good law, that is enforceable and that will stand the test of time. The Bill is robust when tested against all four of those challenging criteria in a way that previous Bills were not.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members and others who have taken the time to look carefully at my Bill have, without compromising their views, acknowledged that it is well crafted and will make effective and enforceable law. It will tackle cruelty, but it also recognises the need to deal with pests and to protect livestock and crops.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: How does the right hon. Gentleman's Bill deal with cruelty if it will allow rabbits but not hares to be hunted with dogs and if it will allow falconry and therefore animals to be torn apart by hawks? The Minister has introduced a Bill that is riddled with inconsistencies and that is totally unacceptable. It shows why he is reading from the "Yellow Pages".
  Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has shown his prejudice, the fact that he has not read the Bill, and that he does not understand the concept of cruelty. He referred to suffering, which may be caused in a variety of ways. Cruelty is well defined in English law, and my Bill deals with the issue.
  As well as being practical, the Bill deals clearly with the moral issue. At the Bill's heart is the key purpose of preventing the cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. That is why it is important to emphasise that the Bill, far from being a compromise, is uncompromising in seeking to root out cruelty. It will not allow cruelty through hunting in the way that the Protection of Animals Act 1911 did, it will not license cruelty in the way that the middle way group's proposals sought to do, and it will not just list the activities to be banned in the way that previous Bills have sought to do at the risk of creating a jamboree for lawyers in the courts. Instead, it goes straight to the heart of the matter by enshrining in law the principle of preventing cruelty as well as the principle of recognising utility. Those principles emerged from the Burns report.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister explain why he has unfairly singled out hare coursing and stag hunting? Will he confirm that he has accepted that both stag hunting and hare coursing meet some of the tests of utility and cruelty? Will he also
  572
  confirm what he said to stag hunters this morning, namely, that he had incontrovertible evidence that stag hunting is cruel?
  Alun Michael: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall cover those points in few moments—
  Lembit Öpik rose—
  Mr. John Maples rose—
  Alun Michael: I am prepared to give way as generously as Mr. Deputy Speaker will allow me to do. However, I would be grateful if hon. Members would allow me to finish the odd sentence before I do so.
  Mr. Maples: The Minister said that, at heart, this was a moral question. Will he explain why it is moral to hunt a rabbit with a dog but immoral to hunt a fox with a dog?
  Alun Michael: I shall explain those points in a moment, as I did in the statement that I made last week. The hon. Gentleman should have paid attention to the careful explanation that I gave on that occasion.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister accept that, far from trying to license cruelty, the middle way group was also seeking a formulation? I accept that it is slightly different from the one that the Minister has come up with, but the whole point behind our view was that we could reduce cruelty more effectively through regulation than through a ban.
  Alun Michael: I accept that the hon. Gentleman and those involved with him sought to open up a debate that was not just part of the polarised yah-boo of much of the debate that had taken place. However, their formulation would have amounted to a licensing of cruelty and, as I have made clear to him on previous occasions, that would be unacceptable.
  Mr. Hogg: Would the Minister be good enough to tell the House the difference in principle between hunting with hounds, angling and pheasant shooting?
  Alun Michael: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has read with great care his brief from the Countryside Alliance. It is the only group that believes that there should be any read across from the issue of hunting. That has been made a major issue because Members on both sides—those for and against hunting—have turned up on many occasions to vote one way or another. I suggest that he does not allow the Countryside Alliance or anyone else to confuse the issue. The issue is hunting with dogs.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: Will the Minister concede that, at no stage, did Lord Burns or any of the hearings in Portcullis House conclude that there was a proven link to show that hunting was in any way cruel?
  Alun Michael: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to read—or watch the video if he finds it difficult to deal with the print—the Burns report,

  573
  the evidence provided to it and the transcripts of the proceedings. He should go through all the evidence and take the time that I have taken to engage with those who support hunting as well as with those who oppose it before he comes to the House with reasoned conclusions.
  The principles that I explored with all the campaigning groups during the hearings in Portcullis House in September were those of cruelty and utility. The approach adopted in the Bill is challenging, but it is the way to make good law—law that is "tough and fair", as The Guardian said in a leader that called on MPs and peers to support the Bill. [Interruption.] Opposition Members seem to want to cheer me up with their entirely predictable response. If they do not like that quote, perhaps they should try The Daily Telegraph for size. It said:
  "The Hunting Bill published yesterday represents the most serious attempt yet to resolve the issue."
  Let us consider the Bill's practical effects. Hare coursing is indefensible. Bearing in mind the fact that the defenders of hunting have argued consistently that their activity is needed and necessary, we have to consider the utility aspect of hare coursing. As the objective is to test the speed and agility of the dogs not to catch the hare—the House should not take my word for it; that is what it says on the National Coursing Club's website—hare coursing has nothing to do with controlling pests, so it fails the test of utility.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: What estimate has the Minister's Department made of the number of hares that would survive modern intensive farming if it were not for a sport that has preserved their habitat, which is available to all wildlife?
  Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman takes me into territory that is not covered by the Bill. I shall be happy to debate that with him another time. The question before us is whether coursing can meet the criteria laid down in clause 8, and it cannot. It may play well in tribal discussions for the Countryside Alliance to say that an attack on one form of hunting is an attack on all, but it does its case no favours. If it seeks to defend the indefensible, how can it be taken seriously when it argues for the utility of another form of hunting? I hope that it reconsiders the logic of its position.
  Mr. Martin Salter: My right hon. Friend mentions the Countryside Alliance, which has circulated its brief extensively to its supporters in the Opposition. Will he join me and, hopefully, the rest of the House in condemning the act that took place only a few minutes ago when pro-hunt supporters threw a lighted flare at my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)? Is that the Opposition's idea of free speech and a genuine expression of protest?
  Alun Michael: Peaceful protest is the right of any citizen in this society, but protest that involves violence and a lack of reason has no place in it. It is hardly a persuasive way to approach the issue.
  574
  Having made the position on hare coursing clear, let me deal with the police. They will gain a real benefit from the powers that the Bill gives to them. As letters from a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have made clear, the threats, intimidation and violence associated with illegal hare coursing cause fear in many rural areas, yet the only law broken is the law of trespass. The police have few teeth and little power to act. The Bill will give them the power to deal with that nuisance for the first time. The power of arrest, the £5,000 fine and the power of confiscation of animals and equipment will enable that rural nuisance to be tackled effectively with a minimum of fuss and evidence gathering.
  Mr. Boris Johnson: Can the Minister give an idea of what extra resources will be committed to the police to deal with the thousands of people who will be criminalised by this absurd Bill?
  Alun Michael: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the amount of police time that is taken up because they cannot deal effectively with illegal hare coursing. It is right to give them the powers to deal with it rather than simply letting it take up their time.
  Mr. David Cameron rose—
  Alun Michael: I must make a little progress before giving way again.
  Let us consider deer hunting, another activity that is dealt with in the Bill. I have already taken one intervention on that. It is necessary to control deer numbers and to disperse the herd to protect crops and growing trees. Although the test of utility may be passed, the test of cruelty—to inflict the least suffering—is not. Both the Bateson report and subsequent evidence to Burns show clear evidence of chased deer suffering even if they are not caught. In stag hunting, a particular stag is selected for pursuit a day before the hunt. Even on Exmoor, where there is a widespread belief in the value of hunting, the belief is passionate rather than grounded in reason and evidence. I have spent time meeting a variety of groups there to understand the situation, and I know something of the distinct local culture on Exmoor.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: The Minister will be aware from the report sent to him by the Exmoor national park authority, in response to his consultation, that it believes that a ban on deer hunting on Exmoor threatens the sustainability of the wild deer herd. In reaching his decision on deer hunting, what do his calculations suggest will be the long-term life of that wild deer herd if he bans hunting on Exmoor?
  Alun Michael: I have taken account of those views; indeed, I have met representatives of the national park authority, local authority representatives and others, and as I said, I spent some time in Exmoor because it is clear that there is an unusual culture in respect of the deer herd. Even some of those who strongly oppose deer hunting acknowledge that powerful cultural attachment, while those who support it appear to be unable to see the weakness of their case. Having given

  575
  every opportunity to all sides, I have concluded on the evidence that deer hunting cannot satisfy the Bill's key principles and will therefore be banned outright.
  Mr. Cameron: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves his beloved principles, will he tell us what is the utility of coarse fishing?
  Alun Michael: The Bill is about hunting, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he leaves neither the important principles nor the topic of the debate.
  There have been arguments in the past about the need to control or protect different species; for instance, about otters in the 1970s and more recently about mink, which has become a new quarry species. My point is that if the principles in the Bill are endorsed by the House, in future there will be good law in place to deal with each and every new element against clear principles and all the available evidence. The Bill will cover all mammals so that tests can be applied when circumstances arise, rather than us having to wait years for a legislative opportunity to clear up an anomaly.
  Let us apply the principles to ratting. In this case, the alternatives to using dogs are poisoning or trapping, both involving a likelihood of prolonged suffering and both likely to cause suffering for other species. Similar exemptions on ratting and rabbitting were included in the Deadline 2000 Bill, but as a member of the Standing Committee that considered that Bill, I remind the House that those exceptions were concessions made in Committee, and therefore true compromises, whereas in this Bill they clearly come from applying the key principles set out in clause 8.
  Is not that the logical outcome? Who can deny the need to eradicate rats to promote crops and animal health, and indeed human health? Who would wish to insist on the use of a more, rather than less, cruel method of doing so? Ratting is an example where hunting with dogs is necessary; undertaking such an activity just for fun is indefensible, and it will he banned, but there are circumstances in which the use of dogs is less cruel than the alternatives and in which there is a need to control pests, so the activity will survive.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the Minister on his handling of the debate so far. If I take out my long dogs and deliberately course a small hare, I will be breaking the law, but if I take them out the following day and deliberately course a large rabbit, twice the size of a hare, I will not break the law. Is not that ridiculous? Why has the Minister got it in for large rabbits?
  Alun Michael: No, there is a difference in the species. There is also the fact that hare coursing fails the test of utility. As I have said, it is also a pernicious activity in many parts of the countryside. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of that.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Is not the logic of the argument that rabbits should not be hunted by dogs either?
  Alun Michael: I shall leave my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) to continue that debate. I have put my conclusions before the House and I believe that they are sound.
  576
  The Bill deals with the fact that the 1911 Act specifically allows hunters to be cruel by releasing a captive animal in order to hunt it—a situation in which there could be no utility—so the Act remains explicitly a permission in law to hunt animals for the sheer fun of it. Few who defend hunting would argue for such an approach today. Indeed, the chairman of the Countryside Alliance, John Jackson, has said repeatedly that if an activity is cruel, we should not be doing it.
  The principle of utility has also been acknowledged on the other side of the divide, not least in the exemptions included in the options Bill, which the House approved and which was introduced on behalf of Deadline 2000 in the last Parliament. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. friends that through those principles the Bill deals fairly and squarely with fox hunting too.
  Rob Marris: I am still having difficulty with the concept of balancing utility against cruelty. If, like me, one is against hanging humans for crimes, the Bill appears to be introducing in legislation the contradictory concept of, "We're against hanging, but we'll allow it on Sunday afternoons between 2 and 4 o'clock."
  Alun Michael: That is the point of the two tests in the Bill. People first have to satisfy a test of genuine utility—a need for the activity to take place for the protection of livestock, crops and so on—that is clearly spelt out in clause 8. If the utility test is satisfied, we must find the method of dealing with that utility least likely to result in suffering—the definition of cruelty involves needless or avoidable suffering. If another way of pursuing a necessary activity involves less suffering, the proposed activity cannot be undertaken—that is why the issue of deer hunting has not survived the drafting of the Bill. In the case of ratting, however, both tests are satisfied, so the activity can be undertaken. Cruelty is a precisely defined term in law, and I have used it as tested over a period of years.
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: What happened to mink? Was the Bill drafted by Baroness Golding?
  Alun Michael: No. Any activity involving mink would have to survive the two tests to be undertaken in any particular circumstances.
  I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that in applying the principles I have just described, the Bill deals fairly and squarely with the issue of hunting foxes. Of course, on the hunting of foxes, the divisions to which I referred a few moments ago go even deeper. Indeed, they can be almost tribal on both sides. I suggest to the House that in those circumstances it is even more important to be clinical in applying principles and looking at the evidence. Any hon. Member who looks at the evidence in the light of the key principles may or may not reach the same conclusion as before. I simply remind

  577
  all my colleagues that in free vote territory like this, there is always an uncomfortable personal responsibility to be open to new evidence and the power of argument.
  Paddy Tipping rose—
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman rose—
  Alun Michael: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
  Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend said that with regard to the Bill we are in free vote territory, and I am very pleased indeed to hear that. I know that he will understand that when we come to vote next year on amendments that could bring about a complete ban, if the bulk of Labour Back Benchers voted for a ban, and if the bulk of the payroll vote voted against the ban, that would arouse outrage in the Labour movement.
  Alun Michael: I can assure my right hon. Friend that this is free vote territory for all members of the parliamentary Labour party. I was about to touch on colleagues' wish to amend the Bill to achieve what is described as a "total ban on hunting" and urge them to reflect. Of course, I understand their objection to the possibility of any form of fox hunting with dogs being allowed anywhere in any form. If my proposals are accepted as drafted, there will be the possibility of some use of dogs where the circumstances justify it. However, Members should consider the implications of a so-called blanket ban in certain circumstances. The Burns report says:
  "In areas where tamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods. We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern."
  Lord Burns did not suggest open season for all forms of hunting, and neither do I, but only where concerns, to which he referred in a general sense, can be shown to apply—where the need for pest control has been demonstrated and where alternative means of pest control are demonstrably more likely to involve suffering. The provisions in my Bill deal with that situation.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: I would like to clarify the position on registration. When someone applies for registration on the two tests of utility and least suffering, do they have to meet those tests only on application, or do they have to meet them throughout the whole period of registration? If the latter, how will that be supervised?
  Alun Michael: Applicants would have to justify the period for which they were applying. The provisions in the Bill deal with that situation. The applicants would have to show that the activity that they wanted to undertake was necessary. Clause 8 sets out the tests of what is necessary for the protection of livestock, crops and so on. The evidence would have to satisfy the registrar or, on appeal, the tribunal. On both the cruelty and utility tests, a designated animal welfare
  578
  organisation can also provide evidence to the registrar and to the tribunal about the activity. Furthermore, the applicants would have to show that they passed the cruelty test. They would have to show that the activity that they wished to undertake with dogs involved less likelihood of suffering than the alternatives that were practicable in their area.
  The measure is tough but fair, and it will be simple to enforce. I ask colleagues to consider that when the criteria can be met, the effect of a blanket ban would be to require the use of a method that is more cruel—that is, a method more likely to cause suffering. I am sure that that is not intended by those who support the idea of a blanket ban in principle. I simply ask colleagues to join me in testing the practical implications of different approaches as we consider the Bill further, to ensure that together we get it right. Again, bear in mind that any decision is not a licence to be cruel. The automatic conditions set out in clauses 27 and 28 impose a duty for any activity to be carried out humanely so that suffering is kept to a minimum. The error of the 1911 Act is avoided.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Alun Michael: I have given way many times, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am conscious of your strictures about the number of Members wishing to speak. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who has tried several times to get in.
  Paddy Tipping: My right hon. Friend has spoken of the practical consequences of the Bill. Has he seen the advice from Bill Swann, who used to work for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, that in his opinion the Bill will bring an end to foxhunting as a sport, and an end to foxhunting in low country areas by mounted packs? Mr. Swann has read the Bill. Is he right?
  Alun Michael: Mr. Swann has made an interpretation of the Bill. As the Minister responsible for making sure that these matters will go to the tribunal, it would not be right for me to anticipate, but it is right for hon. Members to study the Bill and ask themselves whether Mr. Swann's conclusions are right. I hope that both today, in Committee and on Report, we will examine the practical implementation of the Bill. I ask no more of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members than to consider how the Bill applies.
  Mr. George Osborne rose—
  Mr. Nicholas Soames rose—
  Mr. Simon Thomas rose—
  Alun Michael: The tests, as I have said, are tough but fair. Supporters of hunting say that it is necessary, but that cruelty should not be allowed, so they should be satisfied that necessary activity will be allowed where it is not cruel.
  Mr. Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Alun Michael: Those who oppose hunting should be satisfied that it will be allowed only where it is necessary

  579
  and that the alternative methods would be more cruel. Some colleagues have asked why Parliament should hand over its prerogative to an unelected—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am happy to continue giving way, but I recognise that that will cut into the time of Back Benchers who wish to contribute. I am not sure whether I should continue to give way or not.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely a matter for the Minister whether he gives way or not. The whole House will have heard the comments that I made earlier. I trust that he will bear those in mind, and so will all hon. Members who wish to contribute later to the debate.
  Alun Michael: I shall therefore be constrained, but I ask hon. Members to note that I have given way 21 times, I think, so far. However, it is a pleasure to give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)
  Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As the welfare of the quarry species will be seriously compromised if stag hunting is banned, and also in many cases if foxhunting is banned, where is the sense in that, from the cruelty point of view?
  Alun Michael: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The aim of the Bill is to deal with the issue of cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. The questions of welfare—for instance, of the deer herd on Exmoor—is a serious consequential issue which, in view of the culture that I mentioned in reply to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), needs to be tackled sensibly. It is foolish for people simply to say that they will ignore other methods of deer management or ways in which the herd can be properly controlled.
  Mr. John McFall: Will my right hon. Friend take an example from Scotland, where the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 allows the culling of deer, so that we have proper control in dealing with pests? A foxes Act could be introduced to allow the culling of foxes while enabling those who wish to participate in foxhunting as a sport to practise drag hunting. We would then all be happy.
  Alun Michael: I am delighted that my hon. Friend would be happy. I am not sure that the situation in Scotland precisely translates elsewhere, but there are lessons to be learned from the control of deer in other parts of the country.
  Mr. George Osborne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He rests a great deal on the objective tests and tells us that he does not want to prejudge the tribunal's decision on whether lowland hunting meets them. In that case, why does he prejudge the tribunal on hare coursing, stag hunting, ratting and all the other activities about which he has spoken?
  Alun Michael: For the simple reason that those activities fail to pass the test in general terms and that it would be a waste of time and a bureaucratic addition to the work of the registrar and the tribunal to allow that to happen.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He provides in clause
  580
  10 for the Lord Chancellor's Department to make rules that the tribunal will abide by and in clause 48 for this House to annul those rules by resolution if it so wishes. Is it his intention thereby to enable the House to consider whether the rules genuinely allow for hunting only in very restricted and special circumstances and to reconsider and perhaps annul them if they do not?
  Alun Michael: My hon. Friend points to a way in which the opinions of this House are respected in the drafting of the Bill.
  Some colleagues have asked why Parliament should hand over its prerogative to an unelected registrar or tribunal. The answer is that it will not do so. Parliament will make the law on this matter, as on every other. The registrar and tribunal—
  Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but you will see on the Annunciator that there has been a serious disturbance at the Carriage Gates, which are now closed for exit and entry. In view of the fact that the Sessional Order that we passed on 13 November lays down that entry by Members of Parliament through New Palace Yard and in other ways should not be interfered with, if it has clearly been broken, can Mr. Speaker be notified so that action can be taken and those responsible detained not by the police, but by the authorities of this House—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the appropriate authorities will be investigating those matters even as we speak. I suggest that we now get on with the debate.
  Alun Michael: I was explaining the situation regarding the tribunal and saying that Parliament would make the law on this as on every other matter. The registrar and tribunal will be required simply to interpret the legislation as similarly appointed tribunals do in other spheres, such as employment and housing. The tribunal will be a national body, not a local one. Colleagues who have worked in other spheres will know that simple cases can be dealt with quickly by a tribunal that has the capacity to focus on genuinely difficult cases whose circumstances could not have been anticipated in primary legislation.
  The registrar will have to be an independent person. We demand such independence in all sorts of circumstances in our parliamentary system. The Charity Commission is a good example in that regard. The registrar will have to have regard to the decisions of the tribunal in reaching his or her decisions. The registrar and tribunal will be strictly non-partisan. They must operate within the terms of the Bill and will not be able to exercise a discretion that it does not allow. They will not start with a blank piece of paper.
  The Bill clearly sets out two tests that must be met in order for any hunting with dogs to continue. Those tests must be the starting point for the registrar and the tribunal. It is highly likely that a body of case law will develop quickly, so that subsequent decisions can be made authoritatively and expeditiously. If hon. Members consider the challenges that any legislation has to face—we are now seeing such challenges in

  581
  Scotland, more than a year after enactment—they will see the strength of the Bill. Instead of a variety of complex court challenges, we will have a Bill that is based on principle and tested against evidence, and legislation that can be enforced without creating a legal bureaucracy that is dependent on prosecution and complex legal interpretation after the event.
  Those who say that the scheme is complicated should consider how it will work in practice. We will have simplicity in respect of enforcement that has not been offered by any previous Bill, and simplicity and clarity about who can and cannot do what. I have tested out the ideas with experienced senior police officers, who confirm that enforcement will be straightforward and involve a minimum of bureaucracy.
  Some have wrongly suggested that the Bill is a compromise pulled out of thin air and others that it is a vindictive attack on a beleaguered minority. It is neither. It is based on clear principles and on evidence against which they have been tested in a uniquely open and transparent process over the past eight months.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders rose—
  Alun Michael: I have given way on numerous occasions and I must make progress.
  Nothing better illustrates the tribal nature of this debate than the way in which those who support hunting have been encouraged to come to Parliament square today to make a great deal of noise. Given the time that I have taken to listen again and again to such groups, their representatives and groups of individuals who have been involved in protests of different sorts, some well mannered and others not, and also the way in which their genuine concerns have been taken into account, it is disappointing that they are not showing similar respect to the process and to Parliament. Of course, in a free society everyone has the right of peaceful protest, but I remind the Countryside Alliance and its supporters that the process that I have undertaken has involved them at every stage, has been every bit as open and transparent as they asked and has taken the Burns report as its starting point, as they asked.
  Those on both sides of the argument should recognise that it is now for Parliament to look at the outcome of that work and take the decisions. I am sure that the vast majority of those involved in the protests today are law-abiding people who will respect the law as determined by Parliament and indeed may regret the behaviour that is taking place. I ask the Countryside Alliance and its supporters, including the more extreme wings, which include some Opposition Members, to show to Parliament the respect that I have shown to them in the past few months. I also ask those who want to return to a different sort of Bill to bear it in mind that the way in which we deal with the Bill will say a great deal about the capacity of both Houses of Parliament to deal with issues that are difficult and wildly contentious. It is Parliament that has to take the decision, but we should reflect that decisions taken through sensible debate frequently make better law than those designed in the heat of the moment.
  Mr. O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance, as I could not help but notice that the Minister appeared to be reading about the blockage at the Carriage Gates as though he knew about it in advance. I dare say that he can clear up the matter by disclosing his text.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Alun Michael: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that when one has carefully prepared a text and things change, one adds words. If he wishes to see my notes, he will see that they contain no reference to the events at the Carriage Gates. Obviously, he does not have the flexibility to speak in such a way.
  I ask all hon. and right hon. Members objectively to examine the Bill, the clear principles on which it is based and—
  Mr. O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of the Minister's response, I dare say that he would be willing to give you an undertaking to place his notes, as they are, in the Library.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is even less of a point of order for the Chair.
  Alun Michael: If it is of any interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be pleased to hand my notes to you immediately after I sit down, but I have to say that the hon. Gentleman demeans himself in his intervention.
  I was asking in reasonable tones that all hon. and right hon. Members should objectively examine the Bill—something that Opposition Members seem unwilling to do—consider the clear principles on which it is based and the evidence-based process that led to its drafting, and ask whether it will achieve what they believe in while being seen by the public as tough and fair and being strong enough to withstand legal challenges.
  Let us remember that while this is a difficult and contentious issue, it is not as important to the countryside generally as the issues with which my colleagues and I grapple day by day: the creation of jobs and opportunities in a strong rural economy, education, health, tourism, transport, post offices, services in rural areas and the future of farming and food—which was given a fresh lead and new hope by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs only last week.
  Yesterday the Sunday Express also helped to make the case for the Bill, although I am not sure that that was its intention. Its headline claiming that hunting had so far cost Parliament some £30 million was based on extremely dodgy arithmetic, but its point about the cost in terms of parliamentary time and opportunities and the impact on far more important parliamentary business was right.
  We cannot go on debating this subject year after year after year without a conclusion. That is why the Government gave a commitment to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion, and that is why I have fulfilled the

  583
  remit given to me by presenting a Bill that will prevent cruelty caused by hunting with dogs while dealing with the genuine needs of farmers, gamekeepers and land managers—a Bill that will stand the test of time and make good, effective law. I commend it to the House.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move,
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Hunting Bill because it seeks to impose unjustifiable restrictions on individual freedom, would increase the suffering of foxes and other animals that will be culled by less humane means, threatens the future of dogs and horses used in hunting and would rob British citizens of their livelihood; because it is intolerant of individuals who should be free to participate in hunting, which is not morally different from all other country sports and should not be singled out for discriminatory treatment; and because the Bill fails to uphold the duty of Parliament to defend the rights and legitimate interests of minorities.
  First, let me make it clear that there will be a free vote for Conservative Members on both Front and Back Benches.
  The Bill will turn into a criminal offence an activity now lawfully enjoyed by a small but significant minority of our fellow citizens. I agree with one thing the Minister said. He said that at the heart of the Bill lay a moral question, which, to my mind, is this: do the claimed benefits in terms of enhanced animal welfare justify the restrictions on individual liberty that the Bill, even in its current form, seeks to impose? I shall argue that the Bill will impose unnecessary and unjustifiable restrictions on individual freedom, that it will rob some of our fellow citizens of their livelihood and take homes from a number of families, and that, far from enhancing animal welfare, it will do that cause considerable harm.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman's arguments about the removal of the rights of a minority to pursue a particular activity are precisely the arguments that were used when bull-baiting, bear-baiting, cockfighting and otter-hunting were banned. Obviously, when we pass laws in this country people must obey them. If they do not, they criminalise themselves.
  Mr. Lidington: To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he has taken a long and consistent stand in favour of an outright ban on all forms of hunting with hounds. What he does not take into account, however, is that when the aim is, through legislation and as a matter of public policy, to outlaw a recreation that has been lawful and enjoyed by a large number of people—albeit a minority—for many years and many generations, the burden of proof should rest with those who wish to restrict individual liberty. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman or others on his side of the argument have proved their case.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend could develop his argument further by pointing out the necessity of measuring what is to be banned against what is to be allowed. If there is no distinction in principle between
  584
  foxhunting and angling—which the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) enjoys so much—what possible case is there for banning foxhunting?
  Mr. Banks: You put the fish back.
  Mr. Lidington: My right hon. and learned Friend has made an important point. It is clear to those who examine the details of the Bill that it is based on no consistent ethical principle.
  I was rather pleased when the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) teased out from the Minister something of what I believe to be the intention behind the Bill, suggesting that if it were enacted in its present form it might lead to the banning of hunting in most of lowland England and Wales while, perhaps, leaving it to survive in a few parts of upland areas. Certainly, it is clear that the Bill is very far from constituting any sort of compromise. The Minister would be horrified if he believed for a moment that as a result of his legislation the registrar would grant a licence to all or even most of the 300 or so hunts currently operating in England and Wales.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: A number of Conservative constituents have told me that they will never vote Conservative again if the party maintains its commitment to reintroducing hunting if elected. Will the hon. Gentleman maintain that commitment?
  Mr. Lidington: I certainly repeat the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that were a ban on hunting to be enacted, we would, on our return to government, make time available for Parliament to reverse it. My right hon. Friend has made that perfectly clear, and we stand by it.
  Mr. John Gummer: I would not like my hon. Friend to leave the morality question without thinking a little about the rather curious fact—if this is indeed a moral issue—that no known Church leader of any kind has ever said that hunting is immoral.
  Mr. Lidington: I bow to my right hon. Friend's superior theological and ecclesiastical knowledge. He has made an important point about the assessment of a moral debate.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Labour Members have suggested that hunting is akin to bear-baiting. Such sports, which were banned a long time ago, were intended to enable spectators to enjoy seeing an animal being tortured. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that simply does not happen in hunting? Most people who follow the hunt never see the kill. They are not doing it because they want to enjoy the kill; they are doing it as part of country life, and to control the fox population.
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend is right—and, according to my understanding of the present law, if a fox were baited as bears and other wildlife were centuries ago, that would indeed constitute a criminal offence.

  585
  The Bill would make hunting a criminal offence unless it fell within the narrow range of exemptions defined in schedule 1 or, alternatively, had been registered under the system described in part 2. Much of the debate has centred on the registration scheme. I find it objectionable that the burden of proof in that scheme rests so clearly with the applicant for a licence—which is stated clearly on page 6 of the Government's regulatory impact assessment. It will not be for the authorities to prove that cruelty takes place; if the Bill is enacted, hunting will be unlawful unless those who hunt can meet the tests of cruelty and utility described by the Minister. Those tests are defined in the Bill in such a way as to weaken the chances of a successful application.
  Let us first examine the utility test. The definition in clause 8 is extraordinarily narrow: it is, in effect, restricted to the work of pest control. That is the case despite all the discussion involved in the Burns inquiry, and all the evidence heard then about the relationship between hunting and conservation, the role of hunting in species management and its role in providing employment, especially in remote rural areas.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: If the Minister were to be truly fair, would not he allow the tests to be applied to the rural community, and to the hounds and the horses?
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend is right. It is striking that the Bill's definition of utility is narrower than that of the Minister in a letter to various interested organisations in April. The letter stated:
  "'Utility' addresses the need for particular activities, particularly in the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife management, habitat protection or land management and conservation."
  Even that list was inadequate because it failed to take account either of the point of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) or of the importance of hunting as a direct and indirect provider of employment in rural areas where other employment is not easy to find. Yet the Minister's description of only a few months ago was winnowed significantly before it reached the Bill.
  Dr. Whitehead: Is the hon. Gentleman making a case against a specific tribunal or tribunals in general? Surely the principle behind any tribunal is the need to make a positive case before it on the basis of law. The hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that the tribunal, if established, would be different from any other in the land and should therefore be opposed.
  Mr. Lidington: My argument is that if the Government want to criminalise people, they should define in law the activity that they believe should be outlawed. The burden of proof should rest with the prosecution. It should have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in court, as happens with other criminal offences.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that at the hearings in September, witnesses for all sides
  586
  accepted that recreational activity should be considered a utility? Indeed, that is the only way one can make a consistent case for maintaining fishing and shooting.
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. As he said, all sides, not only the Countryside Alliance, accepted that in the hearings in Westminster Hall over which the Minister presided.
  Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman referred to employment earlier. I have never understood why people cannot go drag hunting and thus provide employment.
  Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman has not yet done so, he should study the detailed analysis of the Burns report, because it concluded that the impact on employment of banning hunting would be especially severe in remote rural areas, where it remains an important generator of work. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take it into account that drag hunting cannot easily substitute for foxhunting or mink hunting, and that it is not easy for people who are employed directly by hunts in specific specialist roles to transfer to other forms of employment, even if they can find them in areas such as Exmoor.
  Clause 8 tilts the balance still further against hunting. The applicant has to prove to the registrar not only that hunting would help in controlling vermin, but that it would
  "make a significant contribution to the prevention or reduction of serious damage".
  Those words will further weight the scales against those who wish to apply for registration under the Minister's scheme.
  The cruelty test shows that the definitions have again been rigged to place applicants for hunting registration at a disadvantage. The normal requirement in animal welfare law is for the prosecution to prove that a defendant has caused unnecessary suffering to an animal. However, under the Bill, the applicant must prove his case, and that no other method of pest control would have caused "significantly" less pain, suffering or distress. Again, the qualifying adverb is important.
  If one relies on common sense or the evidence of the Burns report, all methods of killing a wild animal will involve some risk of causing pain, suffering or distress. As Lord Burns said in the House of Lords debate in March last year:
  "There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 533.]
  He argued that the scientific evidence that would justify firm conclusions about the cruelty of hunting was not available. Yet the Bill provides that the applicant has to prove his case that hunting is not cruel.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the Minister believes that the welfare evidence against stag hunting is incontrovertible. However, does he know that, according to the evidence of Professor R. C. Harris and Dr. Douglas Wise on the second day of the September hearings, such an interpretation cannot be justified? Does he agree that several vets, such as Douglas Wise and R. C. Harris,

  587
  say that the Government should not dismantle one of "the few and best" existing systems for looking after the deer on Exmoor?
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes the point well. When one considers stag hunting, the veterinary evidence about the experience of the deer is divided. The evidence that Professor Bateson originally presented has been challenged by other veterinary surgeons. There is also a powerful argument, which was most notably made by my constituent Baroness Mallalieu, that deer hunting on Exmoor contributes to the overall health and conservation of the red deer herd in that part of the country.
  The Bill provides plenty of further examples of the way in which the terms of trade are systematically rigged against the continuation of hunting, especially in lowland regions. The Minister will have the power to designate animal welfare groups. Those prescribed groups will have the right to make representations to the registrar about any application. No equivalent right is granted to farmers, land managers or national park authorities, despite the strong views that they hold, as shown by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
  Under the Bill, the taxpayer will reimburse the animal welfare groups for their costs in making representations. We could therefore be in a position whereby the hunt has to pay for legal advice and any other expenses to do with its application and giving evidence to the registrar, whereas the animal welfare groups—one must assume that they are designated to present the case against an application—will stand to have their legal fees or other expenses reimbursed from taxpayers' money. That is indefensible.
  Let me give a further example. The Minister said that someone whose application for a licence was rejected by the registrar or tribunal must wait a minimum of six months before making a fresh application. However, no such limit applies to an application from one of the prescribed animal welfare bodies or anyone else to deregister a hunt that has been registered. So even if the hunts overcome the hurdles that the Minister is seeking to place in their way, they could be subjected to a continuous campaign of applications for deregistration, subsidised by the taxpayer, without any certainty that their registration, once granted, would be allowed to continue.
  Mr. Garnier: At the front of the Bill, the Secretary of State has made the declaration in relation to section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. As my hon. Friend proceeds with his speech, however, he exposes breaches of human rights line by line. Has he been advised by the Minister of how the Secretary of State came to issue that declaration?
  Mr. Lidington: I hope that this matter can be explored in Committee in due course. The Minister will have to explain whether that certification can stand up, in the light of the criticisms that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) advances.
  The central argument of those who support the Bill and those who have long campaigned for a ban on hunting is that a ban is necessary on the ground of
  588
  animal welfare, yet it is clear that the Bill is based on no consistent ethical principle whatever. Foxhunting, beagling and mink hunting are to be subject to a registration scheme. Stag hunting and hare coursing are to be outlawed completely. If the Minister has the confidence that he expressed today in the principles of utility and cruelty, he should leave it to the registrar and the tribunal to decide the fate of those activities as well. Falconry is explicitly protected under the terms of the Bill. Shooting and angling are, at least for the time being, not mentioned. The argument that the killing of a wild animal should be prohibited unless someone can prove that the Minister's two tests can be passed could logically apply as much to those two sports as to hunting with hounds.
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is making a most important point. In one of the weakest speeches that I have ever heard from the Government Front Bench, the Minister founded his argument on the principles of utility and least suffering, but if those principles are applied to other sports, notably coarse fishing, those sports will obviously and inevitably be banned in turn. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are, therefore, opposing the Bill on behalf of millions of other sportsmen whose activities are condemned by Ministers, even if they are not outlawed by the Bill?
  Mr. Lidington: I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is no secret that some of the animal rights groups that have been to the fore in campaigning for a ban on hunting will want to move on, once that goal has been achieved, to campaign against shooting and fishing.
  Mr. Hogg: I would like to reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). The whole House has heard the definition of cruelty, as given by the Minister, relating to needless or avoidable suffering. All of us who practise country sports, such as the shooting of game birds and angling, know that those phrases can be used just as properly in the context of those activities as in the context of foxhunting. If that be the case, it is clear that game shooting and angling are next.
  Mr. Lidington: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. If we listen to comments from organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports, we learn that they are quite open about that being their ambition.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I should like to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) have just said. Match angling, in which the fish is kept in a keep-net and subsequently released, is specifically outlawed in Germany and Belgium.
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes his point clearly.
  Mr. Banks: Perversely, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is making a very good case for the Bill from an anti-hunting point view. I am sure that that is not what he wants to do. Because he is being diverted away from the Bill by interventions about game

  589
  shooting and angling, will he make it quite clear that, although there will be some people—including, probably, some in this House—who would like to ban angling and game shooting, there is not a majority in the House to get such a provision through? There are probably some people who would like to ban the Tory party as well, but there—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
  Mr. Lidington: The difference between what the hon. Member for Newham has just said and what the Minister has said is that the hon. Member for Newham made his point about angling by saying that there was no majority in the House of Commons to carry a motion to outlaw the practice. The Minister, however, was not arguing on pragmatic grounds. He said that there were consistent ethical principles at work here. It is quite obvious from the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham that there is a complete absence of consistent ethical principles in the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend tell me where he thinks that halal slaughter lies in the great sweep of the argument on principles and ethics?
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) knows that there are a number of people in this country, as well as some of the animal welfare organisations, who object strongly to the practices of slaughter involved in the preparation of both halal and kosher meat. I remember from previous debates that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) had to wrestle with precisely this issue when he had responsibility for it as a Minister. The argument that persuades me is that, whatever view I or anyone else may have on the slaughter practices involved in the preparation of these kinds of meat, the religious liberty of the Jewish and Muslim minorities in the United Kingdom is of much greater importance when we take that moral decision.
  Mr. George Osborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for breaking from his excellent speech to give way to me. I would like to return to the intervention by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—I think that is his proper title—who gave the clearest possible indication that fishing and shooting would be next in line if the Bill went through, when he said that all that it would take would be to get a majority in favour of such measures in the House.
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) sees the reality of what many of the animal rights groups actually intend.
  Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend return to the matter of principle? The Minister has raised the matter of principle, but if it is to be anything other than a convenient phrase, it must be able to be applied everywhere else. My hon. Friend has listed a whole series of areas in which, if that principle were applied, people's normal activities would have to be banned. As the Minister has no intention of banning those activities,
  590
  this is not a principle but a convenient series of phrases to be applied to the Bill to carry through what was the prejudiced view of the Minister before the Bill was introduced.
  Mr. Lidington: My right hon. Friend is right. The sad truth about the Bill is that the Government—certainly the Prime Minister—accept that a ban on hunting is undesirable and, in practice, likely to be ineffective, but the Government do not collectively have the courage to face up to their Back Benchers who have been campaigning for a ban for many years. So we end up with this shabby, unhappy Bill as an attempted compromise.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: In responding to these points, could my hon. Friend also carry West Ham with us in considering the issue of point-to-point racing, and its connection not only with the hunt but with national hunt racing? If there were dramatically few exempt hunts available, what would the future of national hunt racing be?
  Mr. Lidington: Precisely. That is a further example of why the utility test needs to be tightly drawn if the Bill is to apply much more widely than the Government propose. The irony is that it will do nothing to improve animal welfare. It does not propose to protect foxes, mink or hares. In fact, more animals will probably die if it becomes law. The reality is that a lot of farmers and land managers tolerate deer, foxes and hares because they support hunting as a sport.
  Mrs. Browning: Is not that exactly why the farmers on Exmoor provide not only fodder, but cover, from which the wild deer benefit? If that all disappears, the wild deer herd will disappear too. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Minister did not answer my question. Either he has the information as to how long he anticipates there being a wild deer herd on Exmoor or he has not. Would it not be wrong if he has not made that calculation?
  Mr. Lidington: It would be quite wrong, but I do not have great confidence that the Government have done it.
  Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lidington: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but then I want to move on to allow time for the many other Members who wish to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Swayne: The experience of the New Forest is instructive in this respect. Now that the Buck hounds have disappeared, the forest supports vastly fewer deer, but the Forestry Commission is required to cull them in much larger numbers, as the previous regime merely dispersed the population throughout the forest. It did not kill very many at all.
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The truth is that if hunting is ending, there will be little incentive for anyone who farms or owns land to conserve wild mammal populations that prey on their

  591
  crops or livestock. Many of those animals that the Bill purports to help will almost certainly die more painfully if killed by methods other than hunting with hounds.
  One thing that came out again and again from the Burns report and all the debates around it is that shooting and snaring are indiscriminate—more animals are left to die a lingering death. I refer briefly to a letter describing the impact of the ban on hunting in Scotland and what it means in terms of animal welfare:
  "Recently a fox was seen to run within 50 yards of a Gun. A shot was fired head-on and the animal somersaulted. A second shot was fired as the fox ran away. He spun round then went to ground in a badger sett. It would be difficult to believe that this fox had not been hit at least once, probably twice. The Guns, all experienced shots, were making a sincere effort to kill the fox cleanly, but they failed. By law, we were then forced to leave this fox to live with his wounds, or die from them. In all my hunting life, I have never been party to causing suffering. In conventional foxhunting, it could never happen."
  If the Bill proceeds into law, more wild mammals will die the lingering, painful death that that correspondent describes.
  It is almost surreal that we are spending parliamentary and Government time debating the future of foxhunting when our country is on the brink of possible war in the middle east and we have major crises in our public services, but the Government have chosen to introduce the Bill. If they had wanted, as the Minister said, to spare Parliament that time, they need only have ignored their Back Benchers' campaign for yet another go at legislating on this topic.
  The Bill is intolerant, illiberal and arbitrary. It will restrict freedom and do nothing to help animal welfare. The House should reject it.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have a point of order from Mr. Flynn.
  Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I raise a point of order on the Sessional Orders? I walked across from Waterloo at quarter past 5 with extreme difficulty. May I say a word of thanks to the police? I quoted the Sessional Orders to them and they led me through a crowd of loutish people whose behaviour was very threatening. I witnessed at least one act of violence, which I am sure will be on the television tomorrow. What on earth are those people doing in believing that by holding up the London traffic and causing unnecessary disruption they can persuade anyone—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but that is not a point of order for the Chair. I call Mr. Banks.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Bellingham: Nice tie, Tony.
  Mr. Banks: Thank you. Perhaps I ought to explain that this rather garish necktie, which has been pointed
  592
  out by the hon. Gentleman, was presented to me at a dinner in Scarborough on Friday night. I said that I would wear it for the debate on Second Reading, but it is not an attempt, as it were, to emulate the shadow leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), whose sartorial taste defies adequate description. I shall not bother to press the button on the tie, as the House will get a rather tinny version of "Jingle Bells". If the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) wants to borrow it while he makes his speech, I shall give it to him afterwards. The hon. Gentleman has diverted me totally from what I was going to say, but what the hell.
  The Scarborough and Whitby constituency has about six hunts, and what bothers people there is the fact that if the Bill is unamended they will still have six. They were certainly not happy about that. I do not altogether agree with them, however, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) inadvertently made a rather good speech from an anti-hunt point of view. He said why the Bill should be given a Second Reading and why it should be unamended. I do not happen to agree with him, but he made a good case suggesting that the Bill could—just could —end hunting altogether. [Interruption.] We do not have to bother to amend it if it will, but I have to disappoint hon. Members, because that is exactly what we intend to do.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury concluded by saying that surely we have more important things to do. I can assure him that many people on both sides of the House who are bored with the issue would like to resolve it, which is why the Government have made it clear that the two Houses of Parliament will be given the opportunity to do so. Let us do that. We will never agree on the issue, but at least we can agree that we need to resolve it.
  Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman used exactly the same argument when my right hon. Friend the Minister made his statement on the Bill on 3 December. The hon. Gentleman said, "What are the Government's priorities when we end up with this statement before the one on A-levels?" What happened when we reached the end of my right hon. Friend's statement and moved on to the statement on A-levels? Everyone got up and went out—on both sides of the House, I might add.
  Lembit Öpik rose—
  Mr. Banks: I will not give way. The issue might not he the most important facing the country—it most certainly is not—but it is not unimportant and we have to resolve it.
  I do not intend to speak at length on the arguments over the Bill—certainly not after the diversion caused by my tie—but I must make a few points on the issue. Parliament has been debating the matter of hunting wild mammals with dogs since 1893. There have been dozens of attempts to take Bills through the House. Most failed as they were voted down, talked out or abandoned, but the arguments simply do not go away, and they will not until we have resolved the issue. It is a moral issue about cruelty to animals. I take a straightforward view: it is wrong to take pleasure from the killing of animals. Indeed, it is as wrong to take pleasure from the killing of animals as it is to take pleasure from the killing of human beings.

  593
  All the points that have been made about halal meat and so on are not the issue. There is a lot of cruelty in intensive farming, for example, and I deplore it, but no one can say that anyone takes pleasure from it, or from the halal process, although I would be in favour of stopping both.
  Dr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very welcome that the Minister with responsibility for animal welfare, in negotiations with the Muslim community, has greatly reduced the suffering involved in the preparation of halal meat?
  Mr. Banks: Yes, indeed, I think that 90 or 95 per cent. of the animals killed using the halal process are now pre-stunned, and there is nothing in the Koran to prevent that. I hope that we will make it 100 per cent.
  This is not a class issue. If all those who went out hunting were registered members of new Labour, I would still oppose hunting. It is not a town versus country issue. Dozens and dozens of Members of Parliament with rural constituencies will be voting with me tonight—more, I suspect, than will be voting the other way. It is a moral issue and one on which we cannot compromise.
  Conservative Members have talked about hunting and tradition, but exactly the same argument was used about bull baiting, otter hunting—only recently—dog fighting, cock fighting, pig sticking, and so on and on. Some say that this is a matter of human rights, but we do not have rights as humans to torture and kill animals for pleasure. There cannot be any human rights involved in that.
  By definition, the animals cannot speak for themselves, so we will speak for them here in Parliament. I must say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that, in my humble opinion, we cannot accept a licensing regime. We must support the Bill, because we need a Bill to amend. Some people on our side of the argument say that they will oppose it, but that is crass. Frankly, if it is defeated, hunting will continue. That is precisely why Conservative Members want to vote it down. There will not be another opportunity in this Parliament to end the hunting of wild mammals with dogs, so we must vote for the Bill on Second Reading and seek to amend it in Committee and on Report.
  Miss McIntosh: I am happy to give West Ham a penalty point—I fear they may need it at the moment.
  Did I carry the hon. Gentleman with me on my remark about the contribution that horses that participate in hunting make to the future of the national hunt? Does he agree that if the number of exempt hunts was reduced to such a low level that the national hunt was jeopardised, this would indeed be a very bad Bill?
  Mr. Banks: It would be, if that was the conclusion, but the fact is that drag hunting provides precisely the same opportunities as foxhunting, so the hon. Lady's argument is not especially strong.
  The Bill is good in that it takes us a step further. I say that as one who has been consistent in opposing all forms of hunting wild mammals with dogs. The Bill
  594
  bans hare coursing and deer hunting, which is good. The hon. Member for Aylesbury may have a point: it could end up with all hunting being finished through the licensing system or the failure to get a licence under the Bill. However, there is no guarantee. I commend the Minister for his valiant effort, as it takes quite a lot to unite—almost—the Conservative party and bring out its true face. So much for caring, compassionate conservatism, and welcome back to evil, nasty, vicious conservatism, which gives us back our compass so that we know what is really going on.
  The Bill is a good try, and if we did not have it we would have nothing to amend, but because it does not give a guarantee I cannot entirely support it as published, although I will certainly vote for it tonight. I look forward to seeing an end to hunting at long last. I hope that, by the end of next year, hunting will be finished. Then, of course, John Peel will have to find something else to do with his horn in the morning.
  6.45 pm
  Andrew George (St. Ives): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), whose knowledge, commitment and passion on this issue are widely recognised.
  As I represent a rural constituency with two hunts in it, I know that the issue generates high emotions and indignation on all sides—certainly to the extent that it creates serious disturbance outside the House, which none of us would endorse. The hon. Member for West Ham is right to say that the belief that it is a question of townies versus the countryside is misplaced. As a countryman, I do not feel that I am represented by some of the lobby groups who claim that country people should be pro-hunting. Many of my family are engaged in farming, and they have a variety of views on hunting, but I do not think that any of them will allow the hunt over their land, often for good, practical reasons. For example, livestock farmers at Mullion will not allow the hunt on their land because the participants are so inept that they worry the livestock, destroy the hedgerows and disturb the farmland.
  Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is making a sensible point. Farmers and landowners who do not want the hunt to go across their land have only to say so, but plenty of them see the utility of having the hunt there, and they should not be prevented from exercising their free choice to allow it.
  Andrew George: I appreciate that point, and no doubt the civil liberties theme will run through this debate, as it has through all our earlier debates on the subject. Many have said that this is a matter of principle and consistency, but I challenge anyone in the House to claim that they have been consistent throughout on all policies.
  Dr. Palmer: While we are talking about consistency, if a future Conservative Government proposed to take parliamentary time to reverse a ban, what would be the Liberal Democrats' position?
  Andrew George: That is a matter for the Conservatives, but the hon. Gentleman knows that

  595
  there is a range of views within all the parties, and we will cherish them all, as he will no doubt cherish all the views on the Labour Benches. The Liberal Democrats have been consistently in favour of a ban, and that will remain the case. Personally, I think that any review of that position is unlikely. However, I must say that this issue is monumentally less important than all the other country issues that concern me, such as rural housing, the future of farming, rural services and the potential devastation of the fishing industry, which may be literally only days away. Many hon. Members recognise that a disproportionate amount of parliamentary time has already been spent on this issue. Of course, it was not my decision to introduce this Bill, but now that that has happened, it is clearly important to deal with this issue properly and to get it right once and for all, rather than having it come back again.
  My concern is that the Bill compromises perhaps a little too much. I agree with the Minister when he says that one of its great strengths is that it is enforceable, unlike the previous failed Bill, which would not have passed the enforceability test for legislation. However, although the current Bill is strong in that respect, it does not set the thresholds for utility and cruelty sufficiently high to make it worth pushing such a Bill through Parliament. It compromises so much that it compromises the welfare of the Bill itself.
  Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House by telling us whether it is still official Liberal Democrat party policy to ban hunting, and if it is not, is there a free vote on the issue?
  Andrew George: I thought that I had already answered that question, but for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman—who perhaps was not listening or was not present at the time—I shall repeat that the party policy is clearly in favour of a ban on hunting, and there is a free vote for Liberal Democrat MPs on that issue.
  Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is so tribal—a point that the Minister has already made—that the last thing that we want to do is to add party political tribalism to it? It must be regarded as a matter of conscience.
  Andrew George: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and as Conservative Members know, a range of views exists among them—[Interruption.] Well, they may be embarrassed about that, but such a range does exist among them, just as it exists among Labour Members in this House, among Labour peers in the other place, and among Liberal Democrats. If we see this as a moral issue, it is right that we have a free vote on it.
  We will doubtless rehearse many of the arguments that we have had many times before, but I am looking forward to getting down to the nitty-gritty of the Bill itself. I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham is right in saying that amendments will be tabled to it. [Interruption.] As a Front-Bench spokesman, I shall ensure that I cover all of the issues that I want to cover in this speech. We must get down to the nitty-gritty of the Bill in Committee, because it is important to do so.
  I realise that there are Conservative Members who perhaps do not want to hear about these matters, but I was surprised at their failure to mention the importance
  596
  of the future of farming. In fact, there are important farming matters that relate directly to the Bill. I hope that the Minister can clarify in his windingup speech—or in Committee, at least—that the Bill does not unreasonably or inadvertently limit practical pest control measures on farms. I foresee that in a number of respects—I shall not detain the House by discussing them now—the Bill may affect farmers' ability to implement effective, humane and efficient pest control measures.
  No mention has so far been made of the issue of fallen stock, which I questioned the Minister about when he made his initial statement. When the Bill is considered in Committee, it is important that the Minister reassure livestock farmers that cast-iron proposals are in place to assist them, should they lose a convenient outlet for fallen stock. It is clear that animal by-product regulations will ban on-farm burial from May next year. The Minister's Department is responsible for such matters, so it is important that he bring forward suitable measures. There is a greater likelihood of support in this House, and in another place, if we are reassured on that issue.
  Alun Michael: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and others who may be concerned about this issue that we are indeed addressing it vigorously; however, the Bill is not the legislation to deal with it. I am entirely happy to discuss how the Bill relates to that issue, but it does not refer to it directly.
  Andrew George: I appreciate that the matter may not relate specifically to the Bill, but the Minister will understand that it directly affects the likelihood of the Bill winning the level of support that he would like.
  I am also concerned that in certain circumstances, the utility argument may set—
  Mr. Bellingham: My sister recently had to have her pony put down, and it was the west Norfolk hunt that did so and removed the carcass to its kennels. Who would have taken that carcass away had the hunt not been there? The council would not have done it, and it certainly could not have been buried.
  Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is simply assisting me in making the point that such arrangements need to be in place. As I have already said, it is clear that on-farm burial will be banned from May next year. This is an important matter.
  Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Andrew George: Well, in doing so I am taking up the hon. Gentleman's own time.
  Mr. Swire: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good thing here, and I support what he is doing in calling for compensation—if that is what he is doing—or for alternative arrangements to hunts for farmers who wish to dispose of their stock. However, nowhere in this tawdry Bill does it remotely address the question of compensation for those whose livelihoods depend on the hunt.
  Andrew George: I appreciate that a compensation culture exists in certain circles; perhaps it now exists

  597
  among Conservative Back Benchers, rather than among Conservative Front Benchers. I have made the point about fallen stock, and I want to move on to another farming-related matter.
  I am concerned that the utility argument may set farmer against farmer. As I have said, many of the farmers in my family will not allow the hunt across their land, often for good practical reasons. However, in constructing a utility argument, we may find that one farmer argues that hunting is necessary in a certain area, but that a number of other farmers and landowners argue that they do not want hunting there. It is important that the Minister recognises that the measure may lead to an unwelcome conflict in rural areas, simply in order to enable an application for a hunting licence to be pursued.
  On clause 7, I further caution the Minister that he should not inadvertently criminalise the landowner who permits hare coursing on his or her land. Sometimes, such activity has taken place against the will of the landowner or farmer, has been enforced by a gang of thugs, and has resulted in serious physical assault on the landowner or farmer. The Bill needs amending in that regard. The Minister needs to recognise that the issue is the giving of permission, rather than where hare coursing happens to take place. On first looking at the Bill—and as my initial response to the recent statement made clear—I felt that it constituted a de facto, workable ban on recreational hunting that none the less permitted efficient and humane pest control where necessary. However, I am not sure that it will actually achieve that; it needs strengthening in a number of respects.
  Mr. Sanders: The Minister also used the word "humane", but to me "humane" means by or of the human being. I cannot understand how, in any circumstances, a trained dog tearing another animal apart could be described as humane. Surely this Bill ought therefore de facto to outlaw all hunting.
  Andrew George: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We will have an opportunity to probe the boundaries of where permitted pest control should take place.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Andrew George: I will not give way any more. I am concerned that other right hon. and hon. Members will not be able to speak, so I will bring my comments to a close.
  The Bill will need strengthening in Committee. I will support amendments brought forward by others—and, if necessary, by me—to strengthen the Bill so that there is a presumption that hunting is banned and applications are made for lawful, effective and efficient pest control.
  Mr. Atkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Andrew George: I will not give way any more.
  598
  Clause 48 provides an opportunity for future Secretaries of State to introduce regulations—not primary legislation—that would substantially amend the legislation. The Minister and the Government should consider the clause carefully and amend it so that primary legislation will be required for any such changes.
  The Bill sets a number of challenges. The Minister has put himself in the political equivalent of a leper colony and seems to have alienated many of his Back Benchers as well as Opposition Members. However, I take my hat off to him for his bravery and commitment, not to mention the time that he has put into this. I hope that he will be as receptive in Committee as he has already shown himself to be and that he will accept reasoned and reasonable amendments that would strengthen the Bill in the manner that I have described.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Michael Foster: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on his speech and the position that he has adopted. I look forward to the contribution that he will make in Committee.
  I welcome the opportunity that the Bill provides to bring this matter to a conclusion—provided, of course, it is the conclusion that I and the majority of Labour Members want. I will be supporting the Bill's Second Reading—it is not perfect but it is the vehicle that will deliver what I think the House and the country want. The Minister has made a brave attempt to find common ground on both sides of the argument—sufficient to let it pass through both Houses of Parliament. I fear, however, that he will find very little accommodation to this approach in the other place.
  I intend to let my right hon. Friend know of my concerns about the approach that he has taken and suggest three ways in which the Bill could be amended to keep it within its existing form and structure. However, I warn him that if these amendments were not to be made, there is a serious risk that more substantial amendments will be tabled.
  The Minister outlined two tests—to prove the utility of hunting and that the alternative methods of culling are less humane. I am confident that in all probability, from what I have seen, read and experienced, the hunting of fox, deer, hare and mink would fail both tests. This is where I disagree with my right hon. Friend. His approach risks becoming a lottery for cruelty. We will not know which hunts can carry on and which cannot. This is a matter of conscience. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House hold very strong views, and it is no secret that I want hunting to be banned. I believe that it is my duty to vote accordingly, and to vote to make it happen, not to pass the buck to an unelected body to make that decision. Parliament is elected to make the difficult decisions—the tough choices. I do not want the House to be undermined in this matter of conscience.

  599
  Using the Burns report, as my right hon. Friend did for the basis of the Bill, I suggest that the following three areas should be amended. First, the Burns report concluded on hare hunting:
  "There is little or no need to control overall hare numbers and, indeed, they are a Biodiversity Action Plan species. However, the distribution of hares is uneven: they are abundant in some areas, mainly in the east of England, and scarce in much of Wales and the West Country. Hare hunting and coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes and have a relatively small direct impact on hare numbers. A ban would therefore have little effect in practice on agriculture or other interests."
  Notice how Lord Burns put hare coursing and hare hunting together, as he did when he considered the manner of the hunt and the kill. He said later in the report:
  "There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a hare being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds during hunting. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that…this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the hare."
  He said in the following paragraph:
  "We are similarly satisfied that being pursued, caught and killed by dogs during coursing seriously compromises the welfare of the hare."
  Lord Burns reached exactly the same conclusion for hare hunting and hare coursing. I suggest that hare hunting should be included in the Bill and banned outright.
  Gregory Barker: Does the hon. Gentleman think that shooting, poisoning, gassing or snaring any quarry would seriously compromise their welfare?
  Mr. Foster: That is self-evident. I assume that the hon. Gentleman knows that gassing and poisoning foxes would be illegal. As for shooting, Burns makes it clear that lamping has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting with dogs.
  I would also like my right hon. Friend to consider the activity known as cub hunting. The Countryside Alliance gives three reasons for the existence of cub hunting. It says that some 40 per cent. of foxes killed by registered packs are killed during cub hunting, it disperses the fox population and introduces young hounds to hunting. Burns concludes:
  "It does not seem to us, from the evidence we received, that these arguments are wholly persuasive."
  The report continues:
  "In the absence of a ban"—
  that is, assuming the status quo prevails—
  "consideration could be given to a number of options for responding to the concerns about…cub hunting. These options include: prohibiting the practice entirely; introducing a closed season for hunting foxes, so that hunting would start at a later date than it does at present".
  I would like to pursue that issue at a later stage in the Bill.
  The third issue that I wish to consider is the practice of lowland foxhunting. The overall contribution to traditional foxhunting is relatively insignificant in terms of the number of foxes killed. Burns makes the distinction between lowland and upland hunting:
  "In lowland areas hunting by the registered packs makes only a minor contribution to the management of the fox population, and terrierwork, especially by gamekeepers, may be more important."
  600
  I would like to explore the distinction between lowland and upland hunting later in the Bill's passage. However, I warn my right hon. Friend of the inconsistency that terrierwork will be included in the Bill but lowland hunting will not. That issue needs to be addressed.
  Lembit Öpik: Am I right in understanding that, on the basis of the evidence that we have both seen, the hon. Gentleman accepts that in some upland areas hunting with dogs may not be the most cruel way in which to control the fox population? I am not trying to trick him into saying anything about lowland foxes.
  Mr. Foster: I am always wary of the tricks that the hon. Gentleman might play. When I introduced my private Member's Bill in 1997. I exempted the flushing out of foxes to be shot in upland areas because of the distinction between the pest control method used in upland areas, such as in parts of Wales, compared with lowland hunting.
  I have been involved in both the hunting Bills since 1997 that have had their Second Reading. Both were full of promise but also full of uncertainty because of the time and the opposition that they faced. The Minister can do the House a great favour by clarifying that the Bill will be brought to a conclusion and that the other place should take heed of that. Members of this House were elected and our views should ultimately prevail. In the words of the odd poster or two that I have seen today—listen to us.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: In my 20 years as a Member of Parliament, it has been my privilege to speak in every debate on hunting. However, I do so today with a genuinely heavy heart as, despite all the Government's protestations to the contrary, it is clear that they are determined to destroy hunting and following that, both shooting and fishing—[Interruption.] Noises from the Government Back Benches show that my assertion is correct.
  It shows a perverted and grotesque sense of the ordering of the Government's priorities that, at a time when the British economy is reeling from the worst trade deficit in goods since 1697, when the pensions of millions of our fellow citizens are affected by a deeply serious crisis from which the Government appear to want to run away, when, after all the Government's fine and wholly unbelievable talk, the public transport situation is catastrophic, and when they have lost their way in dealing with immigration, health, drugs and crime, they seek to introduce such a draconian Bill. It shows a want and a lack of proportion, and a misunderstanding of the feelings of ordinary people that is wholly astonishing.
  Gregory Barker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the latest polling evidence shows that only a minority of the public support a ban and that even that support has fallen to a 10-year low?
  Mr. Soames: That is indeed wholly correct and offers further evidence of the foolishness of the Bill.
  I want to make it plain that, without question, most people who oppose hunting are largely fuelled by a cocktail of ignorance, spite and vindictiveness. Their

  601
  case is made the more irrelevant for that. Of course, I accept that some of our fellow citizens genuinely disapprove of hunting with hounds and that some of them feel so strongly about it that they would support a ban criminalising the activity. My response, however, is that those reasons do not even begin to justify depriving the individual citizen of the right to take part in a lawful activity and that it would be a deeply damaging day for all our freedoms if ever they were held to do so.
  Hunting with hounds is a lawful activity in which ordinary men and women in the United Kingdom have engaged for centuries. Most of the hunts in existence in Britain today are well over 100 years old. They have a tremendous pride in their traditions and in their contribution to the life of the countryside and to its conservation. Many of them play a vital role in the life of hard-pressed rural communities.
  I want to make it plain to the Minister that, having hunted all my life and having listened with the greatest care for many years to all the arguments, I truly believe that a ban on hunting would not only have a profoundly adverse impact on the welfare and, in some areas—for example, the west country—the very survival of the quarry and other species, but would also be a gross abuse of human rights and individual freedoms, and would thus be open to legal challenge. Furthermore, it would continue to be a cause of deep-seated contempt and resentment throughout rural communities.
  With a large number of my family and 407,000 of my fellow citizens, I took part in the march for liberty and livelihood. As we marched past the Cenotaph, I was deeply moved at the solemnity with which people removed their headdress as a mark of respect and gratitude to those who died in two world wars for the cause of freedom.
  Although I do not expect Labour Members to understand the concept, it must be true that all those people who gave their lives would wonder today whether the pursuit of liberty and their final sacrifice for the defence of freedom against tyranny was worth dying for—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Soames: When one contemplates Labour Members, one realises that all those people who gave their lives would be deeply and rightly horrified, and above all mystified, that a land that used to cherish the cause of freedom above all else could have sunk so low.
  Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that freedom is about allowing other people to do things of which one profoundly disapproves? It is not merely about allowing people to do things with which one agrees.
  Mr. Soames: Indeed. My right hon. Friend is correct. More should be made of that point.
  In fairness to the Minister, he conducted an evenhanded consultation process. I am glad that he took trouble over it, but his conclusions are plain wrong. The National Gamekeepers Organisation took a huge amount of trouble to brief the Minister and his officials
  602
  on the various uses that keepers need to make of their dogs. In fact, the organisation was the only shooting body invited to give evidence to the public hearing, but its views were almost wholly ignored. That is one byproduct of an ill-judged proposal.
  However, neither in the excellent Burns report nor in any of the consultations was there any proven evidence of cruelty. For example, no evidence was produced in DEFRA's hunting consultation that would necessitate a ban on either deer hunting or coursing. Indeed, the proposed exemption for ratting and rabbitting shows a complete lack of consistency. If it is acceptable, in moral and animal welfare terms, to use a dog to hunt a rabbit or a rat, why is it not acceptable to use a greyhound to hunt a hare? Indeed, I assert that both deer hunting and coursing, as evidenced by independent observers, have strong utilitarian value and are conducted to the highest standards.
  The truth is that no case has been made to justify a ban on any form of hunting. There should thus be a presumption in favour of issuing hunting licences; when turning down an application, the burden of proof should be with the licensor rather than that hunting people should have to justify why they require a licence. Those matters will have to be dealt with comprehensively in Committee.
  It is surely not the role of Parliament to initiate the passage of bad law to the statute book. Its role should be rather that the love of liberty and the tolerance of the views of others—especially views of which one disapproves, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said—should be made the cornerstones of our parliamentary democracy.
  Members on the Labour Back Benches—the Government's Lobby fodder—must be clear that the real issue in this debate is whether it is right for the continuing advance of the power of the state to encroach on our liberties as citizens. Members on the Conservative Benches wholly oppose this rotten Bill.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) talked of what we fought for during the last war but I do not remember that very great man, his grandfather, saying, "We will fight them on the hunting fields"
  The hon. Gentleman said that he took part in the march of the Countryside Alliance. It was appropriate that he should do so because the march was overwhelmingly Conservative. A MORI poll of people on the march found that 82 per cent. of them were Conservative voters and that 9 per cent. were Liberal Democrat and 4 per cent. Labour voters.
  The hon. Gentleman supports an amendment tabled by his Front-Bench colleagues that includes the incredible hypocrisy that the Bill
  "would rob British citizens of their livelihood".
  The Burns report, which the hon. Gentleman described as "excellent"—[Interruption.]The hon. Gentleman said that the report was excellent, so his hon. Friends should argue the point with him. The report states that 700 jobs are directly connected with hunting, yet the Conservatives believe that at a time of ultra-full employment those jobs should be sacrosanct.

  603
  Between 1979 and 1987, the Conservative Government reduced the number of coal miners from—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Yes, coal mining is a countryside industry; it is a rural industry. The Conservatives reduced the number of coal miners from 232,000 to 17,000, but the Countryside Alliance did not march for the coal miners; it marched for cruelty—[Interruption.] That is what the Tory party is about. It is a satisfaction for me to see how the Tories conduct themselves because they remind me of why I am a socialist.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) referred to what the Bill is about. It is important that he did so, because although we shall vote for the Bill's Second Reading, we do so in order for it to become the vehicle for a complete ban.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester talks about the ban on stag hunting. The Burns report says that 160 stags are killed each year. I am glad that will save them. My hon. Friend rightly distinguishes between hare coursing, which the Bill will ban, and hare hunting, which it will not necessarily ban. The Burns report says that 250 hares a year are killed by hare coursing, but 1,650 hares are killed by hare hunting, so the Bill will allow most hare killing to continue. However—this is why my right hon. Friend the Minister has introduced a Bill, the quickness of whose words could deceive the eye, but should not—the Burns report points out that between 21,000 and 25,000 foxes are killed every year, so the Bill will make about 95 per cent. of present hunting licensable. That is why it is utterly unacceptable to a large majority of Labour Members, and it is why we will vote to ban it.
  The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) said that we need to deal with this issue once and for all, so that it does not come back again, and he is absolutely right. The only way that we can do that is by enacting a complete ban. This issue will come back to the House time and again until we get a complete ban.
  One of the first Bills that I supported when I was elected to the House of Commons more than 32 years ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), was intended to ban hare coursing. After nearly 33 years, we still have not got that ban. I will remain in the House, if necessary, for another 33 years to get it, but I have got other things to do in the second half of my parliamentary service. I want to get this done in this Session.
  The key thing is that, by Thursday, we had 192 signatures for a complete ban. We can get more; we will get more. If we have a free vote, we will ban hunting. I want my right hon. Friend to clarify when he replies to the debate tonight that, if the House votes for a ban, that is what Parliament will enact.
  I was a Minister when we used the Parliament Acts to put aircraft and shipbuilding into public ownership. The parliamentary process is simple and clear. When my right hon. Friend the Minister responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) during his statement, he promised that, if the House of Lords blocks whatever the House of Commons decides, the Government will reintroduce the Bill at the beginning of the next Session. I trust him; I believe him. We have to do our part by amending the Bill to bring about a ban. I will then rely on my right hon. Friend and the
  604
  Government to ensure that the ban becomes law so that, in the words of the hon. Member for St. Ives, we do not have to deal with this issue again because, if we do, we will and will and will.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), I wish to express my total opposition to this Bill. I do so on the ground that it is a profoundly illiberal Bill—the kind of legislation that brings a democracy into disrepute. The plain and simple fact that one part of society may disapprove of the activities of another part of society is not a good or sufficient reason to ban those activities.
  Many activities cause death or injury to animals. Some of them are justified in terms of medical research; others are justified in terms of religious belief—halal meat, for example—and others in terms of sport. The House is addressing the issues involved in the latter category tonight. Most notable among those activities, of course, are angling, shooting and fishing. The central question that the House ought to ask itself is whether there is a substantial and significant difference between angling, shooting and hunting with hounds. If the answer is that there is no such difference, surely there are only two conclusions to which an honest person can come: either all those activities should be subject to the Bill, or none of them should be subject to it, and I happen to believe that none should be.
  Lembit Öpik: Is not the other possibility that, if that issue were not addressed, a so-called total ban would create an inconsistency? Surely it would imply that shooting, fishing and angling might indeed be next.
  Mr. Hogg: Yes, indeed, that is precisely the case.
  I bring some modest experience to this matter; it is perhaps not so considerable as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex. I am a modest angler. I have practised beagling and I support the local hunt, and I have shot game birds all my life. My considered view is that there is absolutely no difference of principle between any of those activities.
  Let us first take angling. For coarse fishing, there are no arguments of utility—such fish are not pests and they are generally not eaten. The justification for fishing lies in the pleasure of the sport. That is a perfectly genuine and proper justification, but let us be clear that, to use the words of Lord Burns, the welfare of the fish is seriously compromised because many are killed and all are injured. .
  The Minister used the phrase "needless or avoidable suffering" when defining cruelty. The phrase "playing the fish" is no euphemism. Most honourable people would accept that fish feel pain or, at least, that that should be the working assumption. The fact that fish are scaly, not furry, and cold-blooded, not warm-blooded are, of course, differences—but they are not distinctions that go to root of the argument.
  I want to say something about shooting, which I know a lot about; I have shot all my life. I am talking about game shooting—shooting pheasants and partridges. Again, we are not talking about arguments of utility because pheasants and partridges are not pests.

  605
  Of course they can be eaten, but that is not the primary reason why people shoot; they go shooting for the sport and to exercise their skill, to be in the countryside, to meet their friends and to see the dogs work. That is a perfectly proper thing to do, but the welfare of the bird is seriously compromised, to use Lord Burns's phrase. The lucky ones are shot dead. The less lucky ones are wounded and picked up later. The very unlucky ones fly away with buckshot in them and die later, slowly through starvation or because they are eaten by foxes.
  The truth is that there is no difference between those activities; they are all acceptable or they are all unacceptable, and I happen to believe that they are all acceptable. In any event, they are surely moral and ethical issues to be considered by individuals, not by Parliament.
  I know that I have only a few minutes more, so I shall be very brief. The second point that I want to make is that hon. Members should be very chary about imposing on others their own view of what is right and wrong, especially when the criminal law is involved. I deem many activities to be wrong, but I do not wish to ban them.
  Mr. Gummer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that I will not give way.
  I am very concerned about religious slaughter, but I would not ban it; nor did I when I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do not like boxing, but I would not seek to ban it. I find obscenity and pornography deeply degrading, but I am not in favour of censorship, and I would not intervene through the criminal law. I accept that abortion raises moral issues of major importance, but those are matters for the individual, not for Parliament.
  That brings me to my final point. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex, I joined the two countryside marches. I was at the demonstration in Hyde park. I look forward to welcoming my local hunt at my house in Lincolnshire in February. They are a cross-section of society: honourable, respectable, law-abiding and decent, and the very bedrock of the society that I recognise and for which my hon. Friend's grandfather fought. If we strain their loyalty by doing things in this Bill that are so manifestly wrong, we diminish ourselves and cut at the very foundations of a democratic society.
  7.30 pm
  Dr. Desmond Turner: I have not seen such passion from the Opposition Benches for a long time. That passion is not directed in defence of the freedom of individuals to have jobs or not to be poor; it is the kind of passion that their forebears probably exercised, 150 years ago, when Parliament was debating banning bear baiting or public executions—it is not very different.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) defended his sporting interests by saying that we should allow people to do things of which we disapprove. I am happy for him and
  606
  the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) to dress up in ridiculous coats, get up on their horses and gallop around the country—even with dogs—as much as they want, as long as they do not hunt and kill foxes. They can have drag hunts—if they want to break their necks by jumping over ditches, that is fine. That is an individual liberty that I will defend on their behalf. What I find repugnant is the inevitable cruelty and the sport based on ritual killing.
  Lembit Öpik rose—
  Mr. Swire rose—
  Dr. Turner: I shall not give way as I do not wish to detain the House for long. I want to present some of the evidence that was submitted to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs inquiry, which is relevant to the issues in the Bill of utility and cruelty.
  On the question of utility, much of the defence that has been put up for hunting has concerned controlling the numbers of foxes. A fairly definitive piece of work by Baker and Harris was published in Nature, the most reputable journal in its field, which studied the fox populations. Basically, they divided the country up into kilometre squares and went around counting the fox droppings—that is the way to assess animal populations. One of the blessings of foot and mouth was that, for a long time, hunting could not take place, so it was possible to examine the effect of hunting on the fox population. If anything, the fox population decreased during the period when hunting was banned. There was no difference between areas that were normally hunted and those where there had not been hunting. The argument about utility, therefore, does not stand up in relation to lowland hunting.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise the speciousness of his argument? First, all his argument proves is that foxes were being killed, albeit in perhaps more cruel ways than hunting. Secondly, does he realise that reports in Wales found clearly that, on the 118 farms surveyed, there were 1,600 extra killings of lambs during the year of foot and mouth? There is a cost attached to not controlling the fox population in this country.
  Dr. Turner: I am afraid that those who have undertaken systematic studies would disagree with the hon. Gentleman. They would conclude that the most potent factor in controlling numbers of foxes is neither hunting nor lamping but availability of food. Whatever control methods are used, the effect on the fox population is minimal—it can only account for a small, percentage of it.
  I seem to remember reading newspaper reports, which were fairly convincing, that in the area of the Beaufort hunt, foxes were being fed to make sure that there were enough of them to hunt. I therefore do not think that controlling fox numbers is an argument that can be used to support hunting, even in upland areas. If one believes that controlling fox numbers is a necessity—I do not—other, more humane, methods can be used. Those methods, of course, are not so much fun. They do not involve dressing up in fancy clothes, galloping around and blowing horns.
  Mr. Banks: When the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) was telling the House that my father,

  607
  among others, was fighting at El Alamein to defend fox hunting, fox hunting was banned in this country, although, of course, there was no alteration in fox numbers. If they were fighting for fox hunting, it was a funny old war, as it was banned in this country at the time.
  Dr. Turner: My hon. Friend makes a totally supportive point.
  Mr. Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Turner: No, I have given way enough.
  On the issue of cruelty, I shall quote what some people said to the DEFRA inquiry. One of the most telling quotations was from Huntsman Jones of the David Davies foxhounds, an upland hunt in Wales. Mr. Jones was asked the following question by a representative of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals:
  "what modifications of activity are possible that would eliminate the unnecessary suffering, the cruelty, that would be involved from the chase and unpredictabilities of the kill?"
  He replied:
  "I do not think there is any way you can".
  Huntsmen were in agreement that there was no difference in terms of cruelty between upland or lowland hunting. One said:
  "It is no more cruel at 3,000 feet than at 1,000 feet."
  I shall follow the same course of action as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, not because I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister has got the approach right—he has made a noble effort, but he is doomed with that approach—but because we must have a vehicle that can be amended to produce a total, outright ban on hunting with dogs.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. John Gummer: The Minister introduced his speech by saying that this was not a compromise but a matter of principle, that he would adduce certain principles that he would apply, and that that would give us an objective way of handling this matter. He proceeded to say that he would not apply those principles to stag hunting or hare coursing. That was evidently because he had already applied them and decided that they did not meet the facts. He then said that he would not apply them to rabbitting and ratting. The principles are very difficult to understand. He could have said, "I am going to do my best to get everyone together, and I will do that by satisfying my Back Benchers by banning a bit, by making a bit difficult and by allowing another bit." We could have understood that, and that is what he has done. However, to suggest that such proposals are based on principles is manifestly untrue.
  I do not believe that the rabbit would understand the principles, nor, indeed, would the rat, but what is the reason for the distinction between the two animals? The distinction has come about for the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) gave. Certain animals—
  608
  fish and other beings—are less cuddly than others. That is a sentimental reason, but not one of principle. People feel more sentimental about some animals than others.
  We should approach the issue by using principles. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, either it is wrong to hunt, fish or shoot in any form or it is not. The fact that a distinction has been made shows that the proposals have been introduced not for reason of principle or animal welfare, but, as we have heard again and again from Labour Members, because they are intended to get at a particular section of the population. It was a matter for great sadness for those Labour Members when they discovered that that section is not made up of a lot of toffs, as they thought, but of a widespread group of people from the countryside.
  The Bill's supporters then said that it is a matter of morality. My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that it might be more sensible to allow people to make up their own minds about morality. One of the issues that I dealt with as a young politician resulted from the Wolfenden report. We argued that what was sinful in some people's minds should not be made illegal. Many of those who fought against us said simply, "I find this repugnant and, therefore, I do not believe that it should be legal." That is precisely the argument that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) used. He finds something repugnant, so everyone must accept his view. When my right hon. and learned Friend said that we should be careful about imposing our morality on other people, someone on the Labour Back Benches shouted, "That is what we are here for."
  The position has wholly changed. The Labour party used to be about the enlargement of freedom and the provision of wider choice on issues on which many people, including many on this side of the House, wished to enforce their own sense of repugnance. I find it repugnant that people voted in favour of saving foxes when, only a few days earlier, they voted on killing babies. Although I find that repugnant, I accept that, in this topsy-turvy world, it is possible to kill babies and call that moral and yet call the killing of foxes immoral. [Interruption.] Some of us stand up for morality across the board and not just for what happens to suit our particular voters in particular circumstances.
  Dr. Desmond Turner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No; I will continue with my speech.
  We also have to deal with the issue of sustainability. I notice that the Labour party says that sustainability should be at the heart of government. Therefore, when the national park authority in Exmoor says that the only way to keep the stag population sustainable is by continuing with the system that has achieved that goal for generations, the Labour party and the Minister cast that view aside and say that they will find another way. This Minister has not shown a huge ability to find another way on rural matters up to now. I suspect that he will not on this issue.
  The final issue is practicality. The Minister refers to a practical system. However, all the legal advice that we have already received shows that the Bill—under a good number of headings—will find itself in the courts again and again. It makes distinctions between people in

  609
  similar situations, it makes distinctions that have no moral or principled base, and it makes distinctions that could not pass any test in the European Court of Human Rights.
  The Bill is also not practical in its suggestion that the police will enforce it. That suggestion comes from a Government who only last week showed that they give even less money to rural police forces than they give to other police forces. Police forces are stretched all over the country, but they are supposed to enforce a Bill that goes wholly against the views of a majority of people in the country. The situation will be so unfair that while the opponents of hunting will be able to seek deregistration again and again at the taxpayers' expense, those who wish to continue with what has been a legal activity for generations will have to pay all their expenses themselves.
  The Bill is not about hunting—it is about prejudice, class hatred and all those things that new Labour was supposed no longer to believe in. We have seen precisely what we knew we would see—antagonism for the countryside, for anybody who has a different way of life and for anyone that Labour Members feel they have a need to attack. They have nothing else to offer the people of Britain, and the people of Britain are beginning to catch on.
  7.47 pm
  David Winnick: The debate has demonstrated that there is no meeting point between those who want the existing situation to continue and those of us who are determined that there must be change and a total ban on hunting with dogs. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that we were class motivated. He may believe that, and he is entitled to that view. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I believe that, even if a different social group were involved, my opposition to hunting with dogs would remain as firm as it is. The right hon. Gentleman said that hunting is not carried out by toffs any longer, but by a wider social group. That fact has not changed my mind or the opinion of my hon. Friends.
  The argument has been used that debating hunting is a waste of parliamentary time. If that were so, we would never be able to debate the subject or any issue concerning animals because there is never a shortage of other foreign and domestic issues to debate. That would be very odd. If there were a total ban—as I hope there will be—and Conservative Members tried to reverse it in future Parliaments, would they then argue that debating the issue was a waste of parliamentary time? I very much doubt it.
  Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  David Winnick: No, I wish to continue my speech.
  The official Opposition's spokesman made the position clear. If there is a ban on hunting, it is our duty to warn the country during the general election that, if there is a Tory majority in the House of Commons—we should not forget the words that have been uttered
  610
  today—it is likely that the ban imposed by this Parliament would go in a Parliament dominated by Tory Members.
  Bull baiting was mentioned. It is such an obvious subject for a ban that perhaps the issue should not even have been raised. When, however, the first attempt was made to prohibit bull baiting in April 1800, the Bill did not make much progress. It was defeated and its opponents said that it was
  "petty, meddling, to gratify petty personal motives…would only give additional means of vexing and harassing one another".
  Such was the opposition to an activity that even Conservative Members would agree is totally unacceptable.
  Those are much the same words as we hear used today against a ban on hunting with dogs. As for wasting parliamentary time, in 1800 they debated that issue when this country was involved in a major war with France and there was a fear of invasion.
  I have no sentimental illusions about foxes. They are a danger and measures are necessary to cope with them. I recognise the arguments; it is merely a matter of what method should be used to control and contain them. The two sides are divided on what constitutes the least cruel way of dealing with them, and that sharp divide cannot be met.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  David Winnick: No. I want to continue.
  Our view, which is supported by a clear majority in the country, is that it is unacceptable that animals, including foxes, should be hunted down with dogs with a scent for blood. They are often torn to pieces when still alive. There can be no possible justification for that.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on making progress on the subject. As hon. Members said, he has devoted a great deal of time to finding a solution to the problem, and has been conscientious. However, it is simply not possible to compromise on hunting with dogs. We must go further and have a total ban.
  In the other place, Lord Ferrers said that fox hunting is a sport that has been going on for hundreds of years. He said nothing about controlling foxes; he merely said that it is a sport. Future generations will find it very difficult to understand how such activity has continued into the 21st century. Minorities have rights—I have often spoken in favour of minorities and no doubt will continue to do so—but majorities have rights as well. If there is a clear, sharp difference of opinion between the minority and the majority in the House on an issue such as hunting, the majority must prevail.
  Obviously I will vote for Second Reading, for all the reasons explained by my hon. Friends. The Bill needs to receive a Second Reading and I hope that that will be by a large majority. However, it also needs to be amended in Committee. If it is not, the argument will go on in this and future Parliaments. My argument with the Government is that the problem should have been resolved in the last Parliament. We had the majority to do so and we should have taken advantage of it. Like anyone who is in favour of a total ban, I am not going to be intimidated by the Countryside Alliance or the hooliganism and occasional violence with which that cause is associated, including as it has been today.

  611
  If the Bill is amended and it is clear that a large—indeed, overwhelming—majority of Labour MPs want a total ban, we know that the Lords will throw it out. I hope that in those circumstances the Government will have the courage to use the Parliament Act. The issue must be resolved at long last and the way to do that is with a total ban. That is what the majority of hon. Members and, I believe, the majority of people in the country want.
  7.53 pm
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) says that a clear majority in the country favour a ban. That is plainly wrong. Eight out of the nine last polls between July 1999 and October 2002 clearly show that only a minority support a ban. When I was first elected, the League Against Cruel Sports told me that the majority in my constituency supported a ban. I am sure that that was the case in many constituencies. However, people have started to think about the issue and that has changed the way in which they vote on it. It is the Chamber that is out of kilter with public opinion. For that reason, it is dangerous to invoke an argument about a majority when one does not have one. Incidentally, it is worth pointing out that the Government were elected with 42 per cent. of the vote. Some 58 per cent. of people voted against the Labour party. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the tyranny of the minority is a justification to ban hunting with dogs.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: When did the hon. Gentleman change his mind? When I was a member of Newcastle city council, he was a member of the Liberal Democrat group in the city. I do not remember him having strong views on the subject. He certainly did not support the line that he takes now.
  Lembit Öpik: In 1992 I actively supported a ban on hunting with dogs. Like many people in this country, despite being told that a majority in my constituency wanted a ban, I considered the issue and was not able morally to support a position that seemed incorrect. As a very educated politician from Newcastle upon Tyne, sooner or later the hon. Gentleman will see the light. In the meantime, I shall pray for his soul.
  David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Lembit Öpik: No. I need to make progress.
  Hon. Members talked about principles. Let us consider the principles that came out of the three-day hearing—the seminal debate—in September 2002. Lamentably, many of the hon. Members who oppose hunting and support a ban did not bother to attend. All three key organisations accepted that foxes need to be controlled. It is not a question of whether we kill foxes, but of how. Sadly, those who keep talking of a total ban focus entirely on one single process to kill foxes rather than looking at the whole picture.
  Lord Burns, in his important inquiry, said that killing a fox with dogs is not necessarily the most cruel way to do it. The Minister has accepted that in certain circumstances and, in fairness, so have the hon. Member
  612
  for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and others. Crucially, there was some consensus among all groups on that and other issues. Various key points arose, including that the prevention of undue suffering is a prime concern. It was also clear that the motive behind the use of a particular activity was not a consideration in banning it. If that were the case, angling and other sports would have to be banned because they are enjoyed and involve harm to animals. Another important principle was recreational use. All sides accepted that that was a utility that should not be discounted to zero. The use of dogs to hunt animals is acceptable in certain circumstances. Once again, there is nothing in principle that is wrong with using dogs to kill animals.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Did any evidence to the three-day hearing include, as part of the utility argument, the principle of sustaining a living and viable countryside from the aspect not only of people working in the countryside, but of biodiversity too?
  Lembit Öpik: The discussion on that was equivocal because there was no consensus around a particular principle. However, hon. Members will have noted the hon. Gentleman's point.
  The principle that suffering can be reduced by modifying practices was accepted. Scientific opinion was clearly divided on the degree of suffering caused by the chase of an animal. No one came up with unequivocal proof that it was cruel to chase the animals and that they felt suffering. However, we did accept that there is a problem with wounding when an animal is shot. In other words, while the kill is almost always instantaneous with dogs, killing a fox with guns is sometimes a messy business that can be drawn out, which causes a lot of suffering.
  Another crucial principle was that specific activities within the range of methods involving the hunting of wild animals with dogs can be regulated and controlled. The point was also made that regulation can work because hunts have the capacity to modify their actions. We know that because one of the witnesses who monitored hunts, who was an anti-hunt protester, said that the behaviour of hunts often changed when he observed it. So hunts can regulate and control their behaviour, and inspection works.
  David Taylor: As someone who represents a constituency in which fox hunting takes place on a reasonable scale, can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether regulation and registration can work? How can hunts control that small but dark underbelly of people who are involved in some of the cruellest practices of all, such as terrier cubbing and so on?
  Lembit Öpik: That is why I support licensing and regulation. It was a hunt monitor himself who said that hunts behaved differently when he watched them.
  It is sad that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) did not have time to hear the rest of the debate, because I want to deal with the weakness of calling for a total ban. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North also called for that, but no one has explained what a total ban means.

  613
  If we look at Scotland we see the mess that is created when we try to ban hunting with dogs, because all that has changed is the fact that instead of riding horses to hounds, people ride horses while carrying guns. It is impossible not to have exemptions if one wants to be fair to the public, and once there are exemptions, there is no question but that the activity will continue. Regulation can be achieved, but we see in Scotland that the most intensive effort to ban hunting with dogs simply failed.
  The amazing comments by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) included a description of the clothing of people who hunt, which has nothing to do with the moral issues here. The hon. Gentleman also made the point that he is happy to allow individuals to hunt on horseback with dogs as long as they do not kill any animals. Let us be clear: dogs are genetically programmed to kill animals from time to time, so even the hon. Gentleman must accept that there must be exemptions.
  The middle way group is is concerned about the over-strict definition of utility. We think that recreational activity should be included because that seemed to be a point of consensus in the three-day hearing in September. If the concept of utility is too limited, an inconsistency is introduced, which must mean that shooters, fishers and anglers will he concerned about the potential extension of the ban to their activities. I make no bones about it: if I were a member of an animal welfare organisation and I achieved a ban on hunting with dogs, I would naturally try to go further. There will be a momentum in those organisations to try to achieve more.
  Rats and rabbits are exempted, but should not there be provision for mice, voles, shrews and squirrels? Dogs do not distinguish between hares and rabbits, so we may make criminals of people who go out with good intentions of killing rats and rabbits but end up killing mice or voles. We need to consider exemptions in Committee.
  There is very little scientific evidence to show that killing a fox with dogs is better or worse than using another method. The middle way group will seek to initiate research in the months ahead which may be useful in Committee. We are also concerned about what may be an arbitrary distinction between the forms of hunting that will be allowed and stag hunting and hare coursing. Why not allow those questions to be determined by the registrar according to the same criteria?
  The Bill provides a serious opportunity for us to have a rational debate, leading to a sensible and sustainable outcome, but only if we have an informed debate. It is not good enough to sit here for two hours, make a speech and walk out. If Members are serious about the matter, they will study the findings of the Burns inquiry and the three-day hearing, which was a seminal achievement by the Minister in obtaining information on the matter, and, in a cool, collective and, so far as possible, non-tribal manner, come to a lasting solution. If we achieve that, we will be a credit to a democratic institution; if we do not, it will be to our shame that we sought to regulate on the basis of emotion rather than on the basis of the facts, which are there for all to read.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Tonight we have seen the anger of the Tory grandees and the violence out in Parliament square, and the reason is obvious—they know that the game is up. The Bill will be passed. We have a commitment from the Minister, with which I am sure the Prime Minister agrees, that there will be a free vote for Labour Members and Ministers. We also have a commitment from the Government that if the Bill is thrown out by the other place, we will use the Parliament Act. That is why there is real anger among the Opposition, in the House and on the streets outside. Tonight is the beginning of the end for hunting as we have known it in this country.
  My right hon. Friend is a very clever Minister. He has worked hard for many hours, consulted everybody and introduced a Bill that hardly anybody agrees with, but nobody blames him. That is the art of being a great politician. I welcome the Bill because it does two things: it bans hare coursing and it bans stag hunting, and I have for a long time been part of attempts to get those measures passed. The Bill will be much better when we have amended it, and I am sure that it will be amended so that it bans much more hunting.
  I want to concentrate on upland hunting. I know what the Burns report said about upland hunting, which in my area is run by the fell packs. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) mentioned John Peel, who, like me, was a Cumbrian. John Peel is part of our history; he is not part of our future. There can be no difference between fell packs and mounted packs, whether in Cumbria or Leicestershire. If an activity is cruel, it is cruel, and I find it difficult to believe that there is utility in it.
  If we consider the fell packs—the Ullswater, the Melbreak and the Blencathra are those nearest me—we find that they use artificial earths. They dig a hole and put in a pipe so that the foxes will be nice and warm and able to breed. The local hunt's code of practice says that foxhunting is a sport.
  Miss McIntosh: I have been out with the Blencathra hunt. Has the hon. Gentleman? If so, is he aware that one reason it goes to such lengths is to ensure a balance in the countryside for future generations of foxes? My problem with the Bill is that it would lead to the eradication of all foxes, which is not what the Opposition want.
  Mr. Martlew: When the Blencathra gets back home to Cumbria, it says that hunting is necessary for pest control; the hon. Lady says that it is not necessary for pest control and that the hunt needs extra foxes for its sport. I do not think that it will be pleased with the hon. Lady's intervention.
  There is no doubt that in the Lake district, hunts use artificial earths. Not only that, but it is recorded that they put sheep carcases inside to make sure that the foxes have enough to eat. The idea that hunting is pest control is wrong. I hope that the Minister is aware of that. I am sure that he is taking notes.
  Hunting also causes problems of disturbance, disruption and trespassing in the Lake district, as it does everywhere else. It can be argued that because the roads are busy in the Lake district the hounds are in greater

  615
  danger there than in many other parts of the country. There are other dangers in the fells. There are many records of hounds being killed by falling off a crag. In the 1990s, the Ullswater mountain rescue team was called out to rescue hounds that were fell-bound.
  A hunt follower of 30 years' experience came to see me. He was not in favour of banning hunting, but he said that hounds were cruelly treated. He told me of a hound with a broken leg which was made to go out on the chase and of hounds that were kept half-starved so that they would run better. He also said that a hound's life is brutal and short because when it is too old to follow the hunt, it is not retired; it gets a bullet in the back of the head.
  David Taylor: Is it not also the case that apart from shooting hounds that are too old, hunts shoot at an early age hounds that do not show a great inclination to hunt?
  Mr. Martlew: That is the case, and it is another reason for cub hunting. It not only trains hounds to kill foxes; it allows the hunt to find out which hounds do not have the killing instinct. Young hounds without that instinct are destroyed—there is no argument about that.
  Bob Spink: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously arguing that shooting or poisoning foxes—many of them suffer a lingering, evil death for many hours if not days—is better than dispatching them with hounds which, by instinct, must kill the fox quickly so that it does not nip them?
  Mr. Martlew: I was arguing strongly that it was bad not only for the foxes but for the hounds as well.
  I believe that there is a need for fox control by lamping on the high ground of the Lake district. The idea that we can control foxes with hounds is rubbish. A BBC video called "Cumbrian Tales" featured a local landowner who was a member of the mounted hunt and a local shepherd who supported foxhunting. When the shepherd had a problem with a fox, he did not tell the local hunt, but got a couple of his mates to flush out the fox and shoot it. I asked a shepherd friend of mine what he does if he has a problem with foxes. He told me, "I get the men with the lamps."
  Some will argue that we cannot have people with guns on the fells, as there are too many tourists. However, lamping happens at night in remote areas, and there has never been an accident or incident with anybody lamping or killing foxes—to argue otherwise is to argue from a false premise. Finally, I welcome the opportunity to vote for the Bill. However, it is nonsense to ban foxhunting in Leicestershire but leave it in Cumbria.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that it would be nonsense to ban fox hunting in Leicestershire. Apart from that, however, I fear that we disagree.
  I have attended or participated in every debate on hunting since I was elected to the House in April 1992. Each of those debates has been fuelled by a mixture of personal experience, knowledge, prejudice, ignorance, enthusiasm and an unwillingness to appreciate the other side's argument. Every hon. Member has come to this
  616
  and previous debates with a firm and fixed opinion. He or she has left the Chamber and gone into the Lobby with that opinion unchanged by any of the arguments deployed during the course of debate. Tonight will be no exception—the issue that we are addressing will leave us as divided tonight as it has in the past.
  That does not give me great confidence in the Chamber's ability to reach a rational and sensible conclusion on what to do about hunting, not least because I am as guilty as every other Member here—I passionately support the continuance of hunting in Leicestershire and Cumberland and passionately reject the arguments of all hon. Members who have spoken against its continuance. If I feel sorry for anybody, however, it is for the Minister. When the options Bill was in Committee during the last Parliament, he spoke with considerable force in favour of a total ban on hunting, but he has now been forced to come to the Chamber to represent the Government and make an argument in which he clearly does not believe. That is one of the professional problems that goes with being a Minister—sometimes Ministers have to advance Government policy contrary to their personal opinion. The Minister has done so, and no doubt he will now tell me why.
  Alun Michael: I have introduced a Bill based on the principles that I believe are right after looking at all the arguments and available evidence. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept that from me.
  Mr. Garnier: If that is what the right hon. Gentleman says, of course I believe him—he is an hon. Member of the House. However, it is interesting that the views that he expressed in Committee on the last occasion are poles apart from the views that he purports to express on this occasion, but let us leave it there.
  Lembit Öpik: As was said in an intervention during my speech, does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that some of us have changed our views, as the Minister also suggested? I happily admit to having done so, not least because of the three-day hearing that delivered more consensus than those who did not attend it may accept. In addition, the public themselves have changed—a majority supporting a ban has been replaced by a majority not supporting a ban, so there has been movement.
  Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman's opinion may have changed since he became an adult and served on Newcastle city council, but I do not believe that his opinion has been changed by any of the debates in the House since he became a Member. However, I have made my point, and people may consider it.
  I shall comment briefly on the Bill, and shall do so in headlines because we have only a short time available and plenty of other Members wish to contribute to our debate. It is intellectually confused, and is a muddle that has been exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and other hon. Members who have spoken on both sides of the argument. For the hon. Members for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and perhaps for Walsall, North (David Winnick) the Bill is not consistent. They and many Conservative Members

  617
  believe that cruelty cannot be licensed in one place and banned in another—that is what the Bill attempts to do. Furthermore, it makes an improper distinction between the welfare of rabbits, rats and deer; it takes another view of foxes and, most incomprehensibly of all, seems to permit falconry.
  The Bill's muddled status is also demonstrated by the Minister's inability—he faced this problem on 3 December when he made his statement—to explain what he had learned from the three-day hearing that he could not have learned from the Burns inquiry. The evidence presented by Burns is no different in essence from the evidence given in the Portcullis House hearings, yet the Minister proclaims those hearings as a new advance.
  The Bill is economically illiterate. Banning hunting in my county will have a serious and immediate financial and economic effect. Although the figures are pooh-poohed by those who disagree with me, there will be a 100 per cent. hit for people who will lose their jobs and individuals whose businesses and livelihoods will be damaged. I have heard the arguments about what the Conservatives did when we faced the coal-mining problem, but if two wrongs can be said to have existed, they do not make a right. That argument is of no assistance to people in my constituency, the county of Leicestershire and elsewhere who are to lose their jobs. Furthermore, the registration and tribunal system introduced by the Bill is uncosted, and I am surprised that the Minister did not think it appropriate to tell us how much that great bureaucratic system will cost.
  The Bill is politically inept, as is amply demonstrated by arguments deployed tonight. It is a Bill that pleases nobody and annoys everybody. That may be a wonderful trick to pull off, but it does not go down well with my constituents or Members on both sides of the argument. To return to a point made by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George)—I urge people who did not hear his speech to read it tomorrow—the Bill will be socially divisive. It is also morally unjustifiable—I merely refer hon. Members to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Indeed, some of their remarks were underlined by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). There is no moral justification for the Government's position or that of people who are introducing the Bill on their behalf that I have been able to appreciate or understand. Nor do I believe that the arguments for the Bill are coherent or cogent.
  Finally, the Bill is legally unacceptable. Extraordinarily, its superstructure rests on two highly subjective tests that are to be adjudicated by a registrar and, if necessary, on appeal to tribunal—they may be presented with different evidence of fact and opinion to justify arguments which, if applied to another part of the county or country, may not be successful. The fact that the burden of proof rests upon those who wish to continue hunting seems to me inimical to natural justice. It is of some interest that the Bill is silent about the standard of proof to which the applicants will have to conform.
  618
  The tests set out in clause 8 are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury pointed out, so vague as to be almost indefinable in anticipation. How can any person who wishes to practise hunting, anyone who wishes to represent those who wish to appear in front of the registrar—I understand that there will be a number of registrars—or any member of an appeal tribunal come to a considered view about expressions such as "significant contribution", "serious damage", "a contribution equivalent to" or "significantly less pain", and do so on a consistent basis right across the country?
  Mr. Swire: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Garnier: I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind. I see that I have 48 seconds left.
  I must also express concern about the fact that, unfairly, animal welfare groups, whose identity has yet to be specified, are to be provided with Government finance, whereas those who wish to apply to hunt are to be given no Government financial assistance at all.
  There is so much wrong with the Bill that to give it a Second Reading would be an abuse, and to prevent it from having a Second Reading would be to do it a kindness. I trust that those who are persuaded to give it a Second Reading and permit it to go to Committee will listen carefully to the arguments deployed in Committee and not allow the Bill to be a disguised ban Bill, when that is not what the public want or require.
  8.21 pm
  Mark Tami: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, which I hope will finally bring a conclusion to the matter, although perhaps not the conclusion envisaged in the current wording of the Bill.
  When previous Governments have legislated to ban cruel and barbaric sports, if one can call them sports, such as foxhunting, bear baiting and badger digging, they have done so on a moral basis. The strength of public opinion opposed to such bloodthirsty activities has promoted bans to stop them, so society has long accepted the principle of banning activities that are cruel to animals. A Bill to ban bull baiting was passed by Parliament some 200 years ago, and bans on bear baiting, cock fighting and dog fighting have followed since. When these issues were discussed in Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) made clear, many of the arguments that we hear today in support of hunting with dogs were made at that time, but to my knowledge there has never been a suggestion that those activities should be licensed.
  Judy Mallaber: Will my hon. Friend note that, contrary to the statements made twice by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), there is support for a ban on hunting, as evidenced in appendix 1 to the research paper in the House of Commons Library?
  Mark Tami: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. There was a Sky poll today which showed that nearly two thirds of people are against foxhunting. That figure is consistently thrown up by surveys. I do not know

  619
  where the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) gets his figures, but they are somewhat different from the facts.
  As I said, other so-called sports were banned because people found such activities abhorrent. Most people view hunting with dogs with the same abhorrence. In England and Wales, hunting with dogs is the only activity where animal is set upon animal for so-called sport, and has not yet been outlawed. The idea that there is some middle way whereby animal cruelty can be licensed is nonsense.
  Mr. Swire: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clarify one point. He said that England and Wales were the only two places where animal was set upon animal. He represents a Scottish seat. In some circumstances, that happens in Scotland, does it not?
  Mark Tami: Unfortunately, I do not represent a Scottish seat. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but perhaps he should get his facts right to begin with.
  We cannot justify compromising the welfare of foxes or any other animal just because a small minority of people enjoy hounding them to their deaths.
  Mr. Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mark Tami: I will not. I have given way twice, and we are eating into other hon. Members' time for speaking.
  If there is a proven need for an individual animal to be controlled, that should be done swiftly and humanely. If it can be shown that an activity is cruel and unnecessary, and that there is a more practical and humane alternative, the only justifiable outcome is that that activity should be banned. I can understand those who argue that hunting is not cruel—not that I agree with them or accept their contention—more than those who say that hunting is cruel, but it is okay to license it.
  The test that the Government propose in relation to hunting with dogs is based on utility and cruelty. As a result of that test, the Government rightly propose to ban hare coursing and deer hunting outright—hon. Members clearly welcome that—but to introduce a licensing system for foxhunting, which the majority of hon. Members probably do not welcome.
  The concept of utility is open to broad interpretation, but I believe there are two aspects of it: the extent to which it is necessary to kill certain animals, and when that is the case, the most appropriate method of carrying out that task. Whether or not an individual animal is designated a pest has no bearing on whether it should experience pain or suffering. Any pest control method should pass three tests: it should be necessary, effective and humane.
  Is it even necessary to control foxes? The Burns inquiry found that there was a general perception among farmers, landowners and gamekeepers that that was indeed the case. Individual foxes can undeniably cause local difficulties, but there is little evidence to support the view that the fox is a significant agricultural pest nationally. The Burns Committee stated:
  "It is clear that only a small proportion of foxes kill lambs; otherwise lamb losses would be much higher".
  620
  In addition, a study published in September showed that the number of attacks by foxes on lambs and other livestock is low, and that in some circumstances such attacks can be controlled by better husbandry and fencing.
  The next test is whether fox hunting with dogs is effective. Research has shown that fox populations are resistant to culling. As regards the effectiveness of foxhunting, the Burns inquiry concluded that
  "the overall contribution of traditional fox hunting, within the overall total of control techniques involving dogs, is almost certainly insignificant in terms of the management of the fox population as a whole".
  Research published in September in the science journal Nature found that a ban on hunting would not have a dramatic impact on fox numbers. Even the Countryside Alliance used to claim that hunting was effective in controlling only 5 per cent. of the fox population, but seems to have dropped that argument now as it contradicts its case that hunting is an effective means of controlling fox numbers.
  The final test is whether foxhunting with dogs is humane. The Burns committee concluded that hunting with dogs
  "seriously compromises the welfare of the fox".
  If that is not an understatement, God knows what is. The results of the four post-mortems commissioned by the Burns committee on foxes hunted above and below ground showed that all had suffered multiple injuries caused by dogs before being killed. In summary, it is clear that there are no circumstances in which the continuation of traditional foxhunting with dogs can be justified.
  The introduction of a licensing system would send out a message saying that foxhunting is less cruel than hare coursing or deer hunting with dogs, but that argument cannot be sustained by any of the available evidence. Licence or no licence, foxhunting is cruel, barbaric, unnecessary and very ineffective. I for one would find it extremely difficult to go back to my constituency and say that I had voted for legalised cruelty, and I will not do it. We need a total ban and we need it now.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Since coming to the House, I have consistently opposed any attempt to ban hunting. I have done so on two premises. First, hunting, certainly as it is practised in my constituency, goes with the grain of country practice and of maintaining a sustainable, lively and viable countryside. Secondly, I have not seen any evidence to date to suggest that hunting with hounds is any more cruel than any other method of disposing of foxes.
  One of the key issues that we must understand in this debate is that those on every side of the argument have agreed to a greater or lesser extent that we must control fox numbers. The variation relates to where those numbers need to be controlled. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) spoke about individual foxes as if they could be taken to a cashpoint and fined for antisocial behaviour because they had attacked a lamb in certain circumstances or whatever else. He must understand the wider context. He spoke about better husbandry and fencing, but fences cannot be erected along miles of open countryside. Indeed, his
  s
  621
  Government want to turn that countryside into a right-to-roam area. Surely, they do not want it to he electrified as part of stock husbandry.
  We need to work with the grain of sustainable and forward-thinking country practices and to try to support farmers in maintaining a biodiverse countryside while recognising that the fox is the top predator there, so it is down to us as human beings—after all, we created the situation—to try to do the best that we can for the whole biodiverse countryside with the minimum of cruelty to foxes and other species.
  Mr. Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the right to roam. How can that right be reconciled with lamping, which requires the use of rifles in the dark on open land to which legislation gives a public right of access?
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I recognise the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I believe that tamping has a future in controlling fox populations. We will have to address that issue in dealing with the Bill.
  I accept that there is a large body of public opinion outside the House—it varies and can represent a majority or a slight minority, but it is always at about 40 per cent.—saying that foxhunting should be banned, as well as hare coursing and stag hunting by association. As legislators, we cannot ignore that. There may be inconsistencies in the arguments. Indeed, the opinions advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) have great validity in philosophical terms. The fox is sometimes seen as much more worthy of protection than other species simply because it is furry. None the less, as legislators, we cannot ignore what people are telling us, so it is important that we bring some conclusion to the process.
  That is why I think that the Minister has worked hard on the Bill and give him credit for having undertaken the three-day hearings, listened to hon. Members and tried to introduce a Bill that can work in practice. The one thing that I recognise in the Bill is that it has underpinning principles. This is the first time that we have debated a Bill on hunting that is based on principles, rather than prejudices. The principles go wrong in some of the workings. On stag hunting, for example, a fair question has been raised as to whether we should prejudge its banning and whether it would be better to apply the principles in individual cases, as it may be possible to convince an independent authority or even animal welfare groups that a stag hunt is better in the wider context in some circumstances.
  The two clear underlying principles are cruelty and utility. Cruelty to animals is defined and established in law, and I do not see a problem in making the Bill work in that context. Utility is a bit more difficult. The Bill demands that those of us who support a more integrated, holistic and traditional way of maintaining the countryside show how hunting with hounds, whether of foxes, stags or whatever, works for the greater good. It requires us to show that the individual evil of killing a fox in a particular way is offset by the
  622
  greater good or utility of maintaining the countryside. The Burns report said that it was not clear in upland regions in Wales, Cumbria and other areas whether killing the fox by hunting with hounds was necessarily more cruel than doing so by any other method, and that that was a moot point. We must bring together the two principles to which I have referred and make them work in practice.
  Let me tell a story relating to my constituency. This did much to persuade me that the Bill is the only realistic way of proceeding, although it would have to be amended in Committee to accord with my expectations.
  In 2001, during the foot-and-mouth outbreak, hunting with hounds was of course banned throughout my constituency, although we did not suffer from foot and mouth as such. The constituency contains a site of special scientific interest called Cors Fochno in one of the low-lying bog areas north of Aberystwyth and along the Dyfi estuary. Under the European habitats directive, it is now a special area of conservation as well as an SSI. I told the Minister that when he was kind enough to meet me in the summer.
  When foxhunting was banned in that area, the Countryside Council for Wales decided to control the fox population in the bog in a different way. It called in shooters and tried to introduce lamping, for instance. The move was a complete failure, resulting in enormous predation of ground-nesting birds by an over-expanding fox population.
  The whole area is a bird nature reserve, abutting the RSPB, called Ynyshir. If its carefully established ecosystem was to be maintained—it being both an SSSI and a home for waders and visiting winter birds—the fox population had to be controlled. As soon as it was physically possible, the hunt was invited back in. It was the only sustainable option. I would expect the Bill to give the go-ahead to such measures, and I would like Labour Members in particular to apply them to their own circumstances.
  By now, surely, we should have moved away from circumstances in which any form of foxhunting is seen as an issue on which to raise the class standard. There are more important issues on which to raise it. I agree with some of the criticisms of Conservative policy, but I think that—not just in Wales, but in many parts of England—principles relating to cruelty and utility can be made to apply at grass-roots level, and in a way that supports a more sustainable countryside. I want that to happen in co-operation with people on the ground, which means not penalising them or making criminals of them but asking them to join us in trying to accommodate the significant number of people who want foxhunting to be banned. I believe that a complete ban would be an ecological disaster in many parts of both England and Wales.
  Many people are now isolated from the countryside. They immediately perceive country practices as cruel, because they involve killing and because they involve control. Most people, having visited an abattoir, would be turned off the meat industry, yet, thankfully, most people continue to support the industry by purchasing meat, and there is no reason to suppose that they will turn away from it.

  623
  We must bridge the gap. The Minister has tried to do that, and at this stage I support him. I want to see whether he can make the Bill work in favour of the reality of the countryside rather than the prejudices that we have heard tonight.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I have opposed foxhunting on cruelty grounds for the last 20 years, and I have not changed my mind. It was cruel 20 years ago, and it is cruel today. I will vote for Second Reading, but only because the Bill can be amended in Committee.
  I despair when I consider the situation in which the Government have landed us because they did not have the guts to ban hunting when we were elected five years ago, and now have not the guts to introduce a Bill to ban hunting with dogs outright. I am very disappointed with the Bill, and with the way in which the Government have handled things since 1997. During the last five years they have lost a huge amount of reputation and trust over this issue—especially among members of the Labour party, and particularly among people who voted Labour on two occasions because banning hunting was a manifesto commitment—which has been very damaging.
  Dr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not look a gift fox in the mouth? If we succeed in banning hunting through the Bill, hon. Members who have been disappointed will forgive us.
  Mr. Steinberg: I am not sure whether we shall be forgiven, but my hon. Friend is right that the Bill is the only way in which we can ban foxhunting. I shall therefore vote for it tonight.
  There has been an inexcusable delay in resolving the issue, and more than 100 hours of parliamentary time have been spent in wasted, repetitive debate, when the arguments were clearly won by hon. Members who wanted to ban hunting. More important, thousands of animals have continued to suffer and die unnecessarily in the past six years. That includes the hounds and other dogs that are used in fox, deer, hare and mink hunting.
  The Burns inquiry and the public hearing have demonstrated that hunting with hounds causes immense suffering to wild animals. They are chased to exhaustion, brutally savaged by the pack of hounds or forced to fight underground with terriers. However, what about the tools of all that cruelty, the hounds and the terriers?
  The foxhound has a short and harsh life. Puppies that do not show aptitude for hunting or fail to meet the requirements are normally shot by the kennel man. Those that are fortunate enough to make the grade are trained to chase and kill foxes during the cub-hunting season. That unpleasant side of hunting involves chasing and killing fox cubs to teach young hounds how to kill. One does not often hear hunters discussing the merits of cub hunting; they prefer to keep quiet about it.
  Hounds will follow wherever the scent of their quarry takes them. That makes the route for hunting live quarry unpredictable and much more exciting for the mounted field. The price of that "fun" is that many hounds are run over on roads or even hit by speeding
  624
  trains after straying on to railway lines. Others become injured on barbed wire fencing or get lost from the pack for days.
  There are numerous reports of hounds being electrocuted and killed. In one case, the New Forest Foxhounds trespassed on a railway line, resulting in the death of six hounds. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like to hear such information because they enjoy seeing the killing and the cruelty to animals. They will vote for that this evening. Passengers on a train from London to Bournemouth witnessed the train running over the bodies of the hounds.
  If the hounds survive all that, we would expect them, like most working dogs, to be retired to live a comfortable life in the country. Sadly, we would be wrong. When the hounds reach the age of approximately six or seven—half their normal life expectancy—they are simply shot. They are taken around the back of the kennels, where a bullet is put in the back of their heads. That makes a mockery of the hunts' claims that, in the event of a ban on hunting with dogs, they will have no alternative but to shoot their hounds; they shoot them anyway. It is estimated that hunts around the country kill between 3,000 and 5,000 hounds every year.
  I support the RSPCA's view that a mass slaughter of hounds in the event of a ban would be irresponsible and unnecessary. I am pleased that the RSPCA has pledged to do all it can to prevent such needless destruction at the hands of the hunts. The Burns inquiry into hunting with dogs found that
  "any need to put down hounds or horses, in the event of a ban, could be minimised if there was a suitable lead-in time before it was implemented".
  The previous Government hunting measure, which fell in March 2001, contained such a lead-in period. The RSPCA believes that responsible hunts should start to wind down their breeding programmes immediately to reduce the number left in the case of a ban. I call on responsible hunts to start to wind down their breeding programmes now.
  I am sure that the Bill will be amended to reflect the will of the public and Parliament. I hope that there is no pressure on the payroll vote, although it is normally applied in the case of a Government Bill. If, through such pressure, the measure is passed in its current form, hunts will be left with uncertainty that may cause further suffering to hounds. It may take years for some licence applications to be resolved. In the meantime, hunts would be left with packs of redundant hounds, with no subscriptions to cover the cost of their care.
  If foxhunting, hare coursing and deer hunting were banned outright through the Bill, at least hunts would have time to consider three options properly. First, they could disband and give their hounds a different home. Secondly, they could disband the hunt but keep the hounds. Thirdly, they could convert to drag hunting. I believe that a switch to drag hunting would be the preferable option, as it would allow members of the hunt to continue to enjoy the sport, the pageantry that they like, and the social side of hunting, while allowing the hounds to continue to be kept in packs.
  The cruelty that these so-called sports inflict on dogs and wildlife is totally unjustifiable. The only way to prevent it is to introduce a ban on these barbaric and

  625
  bloodthirsty forms of hunting with dogs. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has called the Bill a fudge, and I absolutely agree with him. As we have seen this evening, it causes confusion and uncertainty, and creates the possibility that the cruelty of foxhunting could continue. I must ask the Minister why it stops short of a complete ban. In reality, he has chosen a Bill that appeases absolutely no one. It does not appease the Countryside Alliance, the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals, or the public, and it certainly has not appeased Members of Parliament. I can only imagine that it has been devised in an attempt to appease both sides in this long-running debate. Perhaps the Government were frightened by the pro-hunting lobby's ability to get large numbers of people to take to the streets by wrapping the issue up in a number of genuine rural concerns.
  Alun Michael: While I accept my hon. Friend's views on the Bill, I would ask him to accept that the way in which the process has been undertaken and the way in which the Bill has been drafted have been based entirely on trying to get the right principles into place and to deal with the issue so as to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on it. I ask him at least to accept the integrity with which I have attempted to bring the Bill before Parliament.
  Mr. Steinberg: I certainly accept that; I am not questioning the Minister's integrity at all. I think that he has been misguided in bringing us a Bill that appeases nobody, but I would certainly not accuse him of doing anything that was not proper.
  Having said that, however, I would say to the Minister that if the Bill was introduced to appease the Countryside Alliance, whose actions we have seen outside the House today, let us consider the reasons that its members took to the streets for a so-called liberty and livelihood march. In my view, that march had nothing to do with foxhunting at all. Only 47 per cent. of the marchers lived in the middle of the countryside. A quarter of them lived in towns, and 52 per cent. were affluent people from social categories A and B. Eighty-two per cent. of the marchers voted Conservative. The Countryside Alliance march was a political rally. It was an anti-Government march, not a pro-countryside march. Recent military-style action and the threat of civil disobedience and law breaking are indicative of a growing desperation among the pro-hunt lobby that simply goes to show that its members have lost the arguments on hunting. Attempts by a small minority to block the wishes of the majority of people in this country and cause significant disruption to commuters, businesses and families travelling away for the weekend show scant regard for the democratic process.
  I would have liked to go on speaking. I acknowledge the effort that the Minister has put into the Bill, but he could have saved himself a lot of time and a great deal of hard work by producing a Bill that reflected the will of the House. I suggest that he removes part 2 and allows the democratic process to stop this cruelty once and for all. It is time that the democratic will of Parliament and of the majority of people in this country was listened to, and time that hunting with hounds was finally abolished.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a great respect for the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), but I have to say that I think that that was the most prejudiced and ignorant speech I have heard in my 10 years as a Member of Parliament. The House is at its worst when we debate this subject. I have been involved in hunting all my life, and I have heard so much ignorance this evening that it is unbelievable.
  I feel sorry for the Minister. Whatever his personal views, he has approached the subject with integrity. The hearings that he conducted in Portcullis House were fair, and he relied on the evidence of the Burns inquiry. If we study the evidence fairly and objectively, however, it would be difficult to introduce this Bill. I hope that some of its deficiencies will be dealt with in Committee, because we all want to see hunting regulated and managed properly, if it is to continue, with the least cruelty attached to it. I would maintain that the Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting, which few people know anything about, is extremely tough and should be used as the model for the Bill, but that is an argument for another day.
  One main weakness of the Bill is that it does not rely on proper scientific and objective evidence, as I said in an intervention on the Minister. I cannot understand why hare coursing and deer hunting have been specially ruled out with an automatic ban, especially in view of the objective evidence of Wise, Bateson and Harris, who
  "concluded that all of the changes observed are the normal psychological expression of arousal and exercise. All are reversible and none are of clinical significance to the hunted deer."
  It is probable that similar reversible processes would be found in hunted foxes, hares and mink. So, if one takes the expert scientific opinion, no incontrovertible evidence exists, as the Minister said this morning to a stag hunting delegation, to show that stag hunting is cruel. If we are to legislate, we should do so on proper objective, scientific principles.
  If paragraph 5.26 of the Burns report is to be believed, hunts cull 21,000 to 25,000 foxes each year; if the 2010 biodiversity regime is to be applied, farm animals are to be protected. Presumably, that same number of foxes will still need to be culled. How will they be culled? There are a number of alternatives. The first is using a high-powered rifle. That might be safe in vast areas of Wales, but it would not be safe at night in vast areas of the south of England due to people wandering on footpaths, the right to roam and so on. Even if it were safe, I can tell Members, as I have done it, that using a high-powered rifle and killing the fox with the first shot requires a degree of expertise.
  The second method that could be used is shooting foxes with a shotgun. I can tell Members that the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ran a trial, which found that 46 per cent. of foxes that are shot with a shotgun go away wounded. Anybody who knows anything about shooting foxes with a shotgun knows that when they go away wounded, they suffer a long, lingering death. Mostly they go to ground, unfound and unseen, but they live in their earth for a long time before they die, and very painful it is too.
  The third alternative is some form of running snare that is legal. Again, however, unless the running snare is inspected every day— [Interruption.] I wish that the

  627
  Minister would listen, because he might learn something from somebody who knows about the subject. One could use a running snare, which is perfectly legal, but the issue of cruelty would become immense if it were not inspected every day. Members should imagine being caught by the leg in a snare and desperately trying to get away.
  Mr. Banks: Those snares should be illegal.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: If a fox is caught by the leg by a snare, it will bite its leg off to try to get away. That is how cruel running snares are.
  Mr. Banks: They should be banned.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I would maintain that all the alternatives are crueler—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are far too many sedentary interventions.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All the alternatives are crueller, but let us he under no illusion—the Bill will license cruelty.
  I refer to the business of the tribunals, which is unfair. Under the tribunal process, the opponents of the licence for an individual hunt will be allowed to appeal and re-appeal, yet the applicant for a licence may not reapply on the same grounds until at least six months have passed. I would maintain that that is unfair and disproportionate. Also, given the acknowledged absence of any scientific evidence, applicants for registration face an impossible task, as the burden of proof will be on them to show that they can pass the least-suffering test. To quote clause 8 in part 2, applicants will have to prove that an equivalent to the utility contribution
  "could not reasonably be expected to be made … in a manner likely to cause significantly less pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammals to be hunted."
  As Lord Burns said, there is
  not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 533.]
  In other words, it is impossible to pass the test to get a licence. The Bill will certainly mean that a significant number of hunts will not continue—otherwise, what is the point of it?
  Along with many of my colleagues, I took part in the March for liberty and livelihood, as did 407,000 other people: honest, law-abiding citizens, the bedrock of this country. The Bill will impose all sorts of sanctions on them, including forfeiture of vehicles and animals. How on earth is a police constable at the scene of a suspected breach to compel a person to give up his animals? We are introducing powers to search property, and criminal sanctions on people who breach the provisions: ordinary, honest, law-abiding citizens such as many of my constituents. I represent more hunts, I suspect, than any other Member of Parliament: 10 at the last count. Large numbers of people will be subject to fines and possibly criminal sanctions. Is that what we really want? Do we want to send people to jail? I wonder whether the
  628
  House is really cognisant of what it is taking on. As Churchill said, we must not underestimate the power of minorities.
  I urge the House to think very carefully about how it legislates on this subject. This is a bad Bill, and one that the House will come to regret.
  8.56 pm
  Dr. Nick Palmer: To clarify one point, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) accused me and others who oppose hunting of class envy. I do not know which class he believes himself to belong to, but I have no wish to join it.
  I welcome the Government's consistency and courage in delivering a conclusion to a debate that has been running for more than 100 years. I especially welcome the personal dedication of the Minister, who is informally becoming known as the Minister for heroic efforts. We look forward to his being asked to solve the fire dispute, abolish the common agricultural policy and disarm Saddam Hussein.
  The Bill is an honourable attempt to find a logical common ground, but both the riot outside this place earlier today and the blatant hostility of Conservative Members show that most hunt supporters are not interested. It has been informally suggested that, unlike a total ban, the Bill has a chance of getting through the other place, so that we could complete the business this year. God loves optimists, but after what we have seen today that appears very unlikely.
  I accept and welcome the Bill's basic philosophy. It is right and logical to consider utility and cruelty in each case. I will support the Bill tonight. There are two central problems, however. The first is that there is nothing to stop thousands of people clogging up the machinery with individual applications. Applications are not limited to existing hunts, so every individual member of a hunt could propose to set up a new one. I see no logical end point to the process. Six months after an application is rejected, the individual will be back to apply again.
  The second problem is that the Bill, as it stands, delegates the decision on the utility or cruelty of the hunting of foxes, hare and mink to a tribunal. The Minister has made great efforts to ensure that the tribunal is fair and representative. As many of us have speculated and as Opposition Members have suggested, it may well be that the tribunals will find that the majority of hunts do not satisfy the criteria; however, we do not know. A glance at legal processes in Britain over the years shows that one cannot sensibly and firmly predict how tribunals and courts will behave. In practice, we are taking a gamble if we take this option.
  What do the public expect? I believe that they—by which I mean a majority—expect Parliament to reach a conclusion on this matter, and they will be surprised if the one that we reach is that we should delegate the decision to a tribunal. Most people simply do not want us to do that. They want us to come to a view, and as has been said, about 50 per cent. want us to conclude that hunting with hounds should be banned.
  Lembit Öpik: If we accept that the outcome that we want is an improvement in animal welfare, and that in some circumstances—as the Minister has suggested and

  629
  the hearings have proved—killing a fox with dogs is not necessarily the most cruel approach, it surely makes sense in the interests of animal welfare to allow a registrar to look at the specific circumstances and to judge whether a particular hunt application is justifiable within the very terms that the hon. Gentleman is discussing.
  Dr. Palmer: I understand the consistent position that the hon. Gentleman has taken for some years now, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) that the primary determinant of fox numbers is the availability of food. Although there are regional variations, nationally the number of foxes that die due to hunting is just over 5 per cent. That means that hunting's contribution to the control of fox numbers is actually insignificant. We spend a great deal of time debating whether alternatives are less cruel or more cruel, but the reality is that replacing hunting in most areas with nothing will make no more of a difference to fox numbers than did the absence of hunting during last year's foot and mouth outbreak.
  Mr. Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman's point is that the major constraint on fox numbers is the amount of food available, but what sort of pain and cruelty do foxes experience if they die from lack of food?
  Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, except that it is well established that animals breed in greater numbers if plentiful food is available. We could discuss that issue at greater length than the time available to me allows; indeed, perhaps we could do so outside the Lobby.
  Most Members, as well as most of our supporters, will want the House to decide on these matters. Ultimately, the question of whether to allow foxhunting, mink hunting or hare hunting is a very simple one. Given that only 5 per cent. of foxes are killed by hunts, it is clear that the objective is primarily recreational. Do we want a sport that involves the suffering and death of animals to be regarded as legal and recreational? When confronted with that basic issue, the great majority of people say, "No, I don't think that that should be legal."
  This is an issue for debate only because it is so familiar. Let us transpose it to a different environment. Let us consider the example of children chasing a stray dog across a council estate. Stray dogs are a pest and they need to be controlled. The children chase the dog across the estate and stone it to death; they are stopped, and people are horrified. What is the difference? It is only the existence of tradition and a long-standing habit. Our society is so rich that we do not need to depend on suffering and killing for our entertainment. I will vote for the Bill, regardless of the social composition of the group and the state of the opinion polls. I have said that for many years. In the last election, one of my Conservative opponents said that I put vermin before constituents. I quoted him in my election address, and I was returned with an increased majority.
  We should support the Bill with enthusiasm, and I urge all Members whose sympathies lie primarily with the hunted to join me in voting for the Bill tonight.
  9.6 pm
  Gregory Barker: This Bill is duplicitous and malicious. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) ranted about it being an appeasement of the Countryside Alliance. He, at least, can rest assured—wherever he is—that this is a total ban in all but name. The Government have struggled to cobble together an intellectual or rational basis for imposing this unwarranted and draconian regulation on foxhunting, but have singularly failed to make a coherent or logical case. The Bill, as has been demonstrated this evening, is shot through with intellectual inconsistency.
  I have no doubt that for a minority of Members, a ban on foxhunting will be a logical extension of a principled, personal concern for animals, which no doubt includes vegetarianism and a determination to ban all forms of pest control. However, for the majority of Members who seek a ban, their motivation is fuelled by ignorance, prejudice and spite. As we prepare to launch a highly controversial war in the middle east that is so unpopular with the Labour Back Benches, is it not transparent that the Bill is a bit of red meat to be chucked to the troublemakers on the Back Benches in an effort to buy them off and appeal to the basest instincts of the Labour party?
  Mr. Salter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Gregory Barker: I am afraid not.
  This measure has nothing to do with animal welfare. Deliberate cruelty to animals is, quite rightly, already a criminal act. The arbitrary application of the tests of cruelty and utility to foxhunting is illogical when it excludes rats, rabbits, birds and other animals, to say nothing of fish.
  The Bill requires no amendment to exterminate foxhunting as we know it across rural England. It is no more than a cunning device by the Government to ban the sport under the cloak of regulation. The effect on my constituents, who stand to lose their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes and their community will be exactly the same as that of the most blatant ban. The Government have chosen to discard the Burns report, which was commissioned at great expense to allow impartial, educated scientific men and women to find out what many of us knew already—that hunting is no more cruel or inhumane than any other form of vermin control. What is more, according to Burns, not only would a ban have a catastrophic effect on thousands of rural families but thousands of hounds would have to be shot. The fox population would be left to be indiscriminately gassed, trapped or maimed. There is no Walt Disney solution to the problem of fox control.
  The likely consequence of a ban on hunting will be that farmers will take greater responsibility for controlling predators. Those predators will drag an unborn lamb from a ewe or slaughter every bird in a hen house and not take a single carcase. Faced with indiscriminate pest control carried out by farmers, many foxes will disappear completely from many parts of our countryside.
  It is not only foxes that will disappear from our landscape if hunting is banned. Those of us who care about the environment know that if a ban is forced

  631
  through Parliament, the well-kept hedgerows, the coppices, the covers and the ditches that attend an active foxhunt also face extinction. No thought or consideration has been given in the Bill to the important contribution that foxhunting makes to the preservation of the biodiversity of the English countryside. It is no wonder that so many committed and well-respected environmentalists oppose a ban. It was no surprise to hear the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who is a particularly assiduous member of the Environmental Audit Committee, speak so powerfully in favour of foxhunting as a method of preserving the biodiversity of the British countryside.
  Coppicing, hedge-laying, dry-stone walling and woodland maintenance would all be hammered by a ban, or by a regulatory framework that squeezed the life out of the country sports industry. A ban on hunting in the present climate of low incomes for farmers would make it likely that, owing to the cost, necessary conservation work would disappear altogether.
  It has become more and more apparent that the debate is about neither cruelty nor care for the countryside. If Members were so concerned about cruelty, where is the vote in Government time to ban halal meat? Where is the vote in Government time to ban kosher meat? Where is the vote in Government time to ban the importing of meat from animals reared in obscene conditions that really warrant the description "cruel"? Where is the vote in Government time to reverse legislation that has closed slaughterhouses the length and breadth of Britain, thus requiring livestock to travel hundreds of miles on motorways rather than being dealt with humanely in their own locality?
  The debate has exposed some of the worst double standards in public life and I hope that Members will reflect on that the next time that they tuck into a factory-farmed roast. The debate has not shown a rational analysis of the facts: misplaced concern for animals may inform some voices in the argument, but it is self-evident that what drives most Members who are baying for a ban is old-fashioned spite, prejudice and bigotry. This profoundly illiberal Bill, which should concern everyone who holds dear civil liberties, sets a dangerously worrying precedent. It is liberty, not foxhunting, that is really at stake.
  Singling out rural communities in such a measure is akin to the Government's repealing race relations laws to allow the persecution of a single ethnic minority. Thankfully, that may not happen, but the effect on our small rural communities is exactly the same. It is no historical coincidence that the first European ban on hunting was enacted by Adolf Hitler. Despite the Minister's pretence at compromise, the Bill owes nothing to the third way but everything to the Third Reich.
  Down the ages, we in Britain have fought against the persecution of minorities. For hundreds of years, the defence of civil liberty has been cherished at Westminster— something that may be a laughing matter for Labour Members. Although many people may not approve of hunting as a sport, or may question its relevance to a largely urban nation, millions of people recognise that to criminalise at a stroke a large section of rural Britain would be a monstrous misuse of the power of Parliament.
  632
  The Prime Minister will have to build new jails if he sets his face against reason and tolerance. In my constituency, fine upstanding members of the community, who have never received so much as a parking ticket, are ready to go to prison for their beliefs.
  Mr. Colin Challen: Is the hon. Gentleman inciting his constituents to break the law?
  Gregory Barker: No, I am trying to explain the anger and disillusionment that they feel owing to the intolerance and arrogance that is being exhibited in this place. Is that really how Labour Members want to be remembered? Does the Prime Minister want to be remembered as the man who ripped apart the fabric of rural Britain and passed the most illiberal and divisive piece of legislation for 200 years?
  I ask every Member of the House to examine their conscience and to vote tonight not because they hate hunting, but because they love liberty.
  9.14 pm
  Albert Owen: I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs on his hard work and patience and on the wide consultations that he held before introducing the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend knows my views on hunting, especially on hunting with dogs. He is also familiar with the terrain of my constituency so he knows—literally—where I am coming from.
  I agree that it is in everyone's interest that the issue of hunting with dogs should be brought to a conclusion. No one has benefited from the protracted debates without decision. Parliament and the House of Commons have certainly not benefited from the inability to take a decision on this matter. As a Member who represents a predominantly rural constituency, I can tell the House that it is the will of my constituents to bring this matter to a conclusion. Since my election in 2001, I have received a vast amount of correspondence on this subject, the overwhelming majority of which has come from people in rural areas who support my stand for a ban on hunting.
  Hunting is a sport. I have always recognised the need to flush foxes out to the gun where necessary. As the Burns report emphasises, that practice is widespread in Wales. Indeed, such a practice would have been permitted under the Deadline 2000 option that many of my hon. Friends supported. Although I support the principle of the Bill to outlaw the cruelty associated with hunting, I am unhappy with part 2, which deals with registration, as are many other hon. Members. Part 2 will be unworkable because, for example, it will be impossible for a tribunal to be certain whether the losses cited are accurate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), for whom I have enormous respect on this subject, that that will create a lottery for cruelty.
  Mr. Salter: Would my hon. Friend echo my concerns about the possible lack of impartiality of a tribunal that includes a vet and a land manager, especially as a notable vet in my constituency has put a sign on his

  633
  surgery today that says, "Anyone who opposes hunting is no longer welcome at this veterinary practice"? How impartial would that system be?
  Albert Owen: I am concerned about the tribunal process for the very reason that there may be inconsistency across the country.
  Part 2 is unnecessary because, if there were a complete ban option and we allowed foxes to be flushed out to the gun, as in schedule 1, and stalking and flushing remained part of the Bill, there would be no need for any traditional hunt and this matter could be solved.
  The reason for the so-called traditional hunts is the enjoyment of the chase and the kill as pure sporting activity. Yes, a prolonged chase of a fox across open countryside is cruel; it is needless and avoidable. The very dogs used for that function prolong the chase so that those who partake can extend their pleasure—the thrill of the chase. That aspect of hunting has nothing to do with utility, but everything to do with entertainment and sport.
  Many pro-hunting sportsmen, some of whom reside in my constituency, have asked me whether I would take part in one of those hunts. "Come along," they say. Well, I have declined that offer. I am mindful of the last vote that we had on this subject. I voted in the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), who is not in his place at the moment. I can assure hon. Members that that does not happen on many occasions, but I asked him whether he had always been against hunting. He responded, "No, not until I accepted an invitation to go on a hunt." I believe that I would have found the experience exactly the same as he did and that it would have consolidated and reinforced my opposition to hunting.
  I have some experience of hunting. I, too, was born and raised in a rural constituency. As a young boy, I went shooting and rabbiting frequently. I like to think that I never performed too much cruelty because I was trained to do so, but I was young then and I also believed in Father Christmas. I have grown up and matured since then.
  I am very pleased that the Bill will not outlaw shooting, as that makes nonsense of the argument used by the pro-sport and pro-foxhunters that this is the thin end of the wedge. I am grateful to the Minister for reaffirming in his statement to the House on 3 December, as reported in column 757 of Hansard, our manifesto commitment that we have no intention of restricting angling or shooting. The provision to outlaw hare coursing shows that the Government intend to address the cruelty issue. The hare coursing event, as described in the Bill, is not unlike the traditional foxhunting event. It has little to do with liberty and everything to do with cruelty.
  I started by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister on all his hard work in bringing this measure to Parliament and on providing the opportunity to reach a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs. The Bill will assist in that process, but unless it outlaws foxhunting, with exemptions for flushing out, I am not confident that it will achieve its aim. I will support the
  634
  Bill's Second Reading tonight, but I fear that I will not be able to support it at a later date unless it is amended accordingly.
  Mr. Russell Brown: With regard to flushing out, does my hon. Friend agree that flushing out should involve no more than two dogs and two guns?
  Albert Owen: Yes, I agree with that. That is the normal practice in the area that I represent.
  Lembit Öpik: I am surprised by the discovery that Santa Claus may not exist, and I am even more stunned by what the hon. Gentleman says about flushing out. Is he aware that a flushing out team needs to surround an entire wood? How does one do that with two dogs?
  Albert Owen: That is not the case in every circumstance. In the terrain in my constituency, two dogs are used, the animal comes to the point of the gun, and it is shot cleanly.
  I was pleased to take that intervention from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Őpik), as I do not support the middle way; I believe in the right way forward. In terms of outlawing foxhunting as a sport, the Bill has a number of pitfalls. It has several good clauses, too, and, importantly, good intent. I accept that there is no such thing as perfect drafting. I am certain that the opportunity will present itself at a later stage to amend this Bill. Failure to do so will allow the muddled way to continue, satisfying nobody and wasting more important parliamentary time. Let us focus attention on rural depopulation, rural housing and rural regeneration, but let us deal with the unfinished business of hunting with dogs, too, and let us do it in a mature fashion. Let us legislate to end cruelty, to end hunting with dogs as a sport, and to restore the credibility of this House of Commons.
  9.22 pm
  David Burnside: Before I briefly address the substance of today's debate, I wish to make an apology to the House. I included remarks about hunting and farming in my contribution to the debate on the Queen's Speech on 19 November. In the past, I have had a financial relationship with the Countryside Alliance through my company, David Burnside Associates Ltd. That relationship was included in the Register of Members' Interests when I came to the House, but it ceased in March 2002, so no such entry appears in the current register. I now understand that I should have declared that past relationship when I spoke on 19 November, as it appeared in the printed version of the register current at the time, and I apologise for not doing so.
  As I have not been able to take part in the main debate, I shall comment on one piece of work that I did for the Countryside Alliance when I was previously retained by the alliance as a consultant. I carried out research in 20 constituencies in England and Wales, and listed 20 subject matters of importance to those constituencies. Hunting was one of them, and it came 20th— it was at the bottom of the list. We are insulting the countryside, the interests of the farming industry and all the problems that we face in the countryside by

  635
  even having this debate tonight. I will oppose the Second Reading of the Bill because it does not reflect what the countryside really wants.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Russell Brown: I appreciate that time is moving on, but I first wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the Bill and, as we have already heard, on the excellent work that he did in the three-day hearings. He has done his level best to deal with the issue, but I think that he would accept that, if he has had a rough ride at all today, he has had a rough ride from the Conservative Members who clearly do not accept anything that he has said. In fact, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said that we were doing nothing more than licensing cruelty. Although I hope that many Labour Members will go into the Lobby with my right hon. Friend, we expect amendments to be tabled in Committee. If he sees defeats staring him in the face, I hope that he will accept the will of the House of the Commons and accept such amendments.
  I want to mention briefly the effects of the hunting ban in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has been in being for just three years, but it has pushed through a Bill on hunting. Although I agree with those who have said that it is not an ideal Bill, it shows the Parliament's boldness to do something about the issue. It has not been caught up in what this House has been caught up in for a century. The Bill contained loopholes and those who want hunting to continue are determined and have gone to the extreme of almost breaking the law.
  The only hunt that has been disbanded in Scotland is in my constituency—the Dumfrieshire hunt. That happened only because the landowner was not prepared to let the hunt carry out its activities on his land. I sincerely hope that this Bill, as it goes through Committee, will place much more emphasis on the responsibilities of landowners and on what will happen if they are caught allowing something illegal to take place on their land.
  It has been claimed that hunting still continues in Scotland. Lothian and Borders police had to investigate a hunt that openly boasted about the killing of eight foxes by its hounds. We could expect flushing out to lead to the killing of one or two foxes, but the fact that as many as eight were killed shows that either illegal activity took place or that the pack of hounds was totally out of control.
  My Conservative opponent at the last general election has now become a rural rebel. He has boasted in the local press about having hunted on several occasions and, in more than one outburst, he has admitted that, whereas he previously hunted on his land, he now brings in guns to take out the foxes. In effect, he is openly admitting that he allowed foxes to breed on his land for nothing more than the sport of hunting. That takes us to the crux of the matter. The Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) introduced in 1997 was all about the argument that controlling fox numbers was the main reason for hunting. Controlling their numbers by hunting has been an unmitigated failure and it is now admitted in several places that hunting is all about sport and cruelty.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister's arguments about utility and cruelty are admirable. However, the Bill's proposals are a gamble that many Labour Members are
  636
  not prepared to take. I again thank him for his efforts, but I hope that he will be prepared to accept amendments in Committee.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. James Gray: Although I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), it is a parliamentary absurdity that I cannot go to Edinburgh to pontificate on foxhunting in Scotland, but he can come down here and squeeze out—
  Mr. Russell Brown rose—
  Mr. Gray: No, I will not give way.
  It is absurd that the hon. Gentleman can come down here and squeeze out Welsh and English Members of Parliament who have not been able to speak about foxhunting in their countries because they have had to listen to him. In particular, it is absurd because the regime introduced in Scotland is a shambles by any standard. It is nonsense to think that we would listen to anything that he has to say on hunting.
  The debate has been disappointing in many respects. As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) reminded us, something like 100 hours of parliamentary time have been spent on the subject in recent years. I have been involved in all of them, and here we all are again: the same old speeches, the same old faces and the same old arguments—pretty tired old arguments they are, too. The fact is that hunting of all kinds is a minority and peripheral interest. Most people do not understand why we spend hours and hours of parliamentary time discussing it because it is not important to most people. However, it is of huge importance to the 407,000 decent country folk who came to London early this year. For each of them, 10 people who agreed with them stayed at home. It is also of huge importance for a small number of animal rights activists, on whose behalf most Labour Members speak, but for most of the 55 million people in England it is of peripheral interest.
  Mr. Banks: Is it true that the hon. Gentleman sponsored 1,000 people to come to the House to demonstrate and that he put them into Room W1 tonight? That is outrageous. Frankly, his mathematics must be appalling. Will he condemn, without reservation, the fact that some of those people whom he supports have thrown firecrackers at police horses outside the House?
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have sponsored no one to come here today, but the fact so many people are so angry that they have come here should demonstrate to Labour Members how very important the issues are to people in the countryside.
  Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will recollect that earlier today I brought to the attention of the Chair the fact that the Sessional Order on access to the House of Commons, which we passed on 13 November, was violated and that action needed to be taken. We now hear from my hon.

  637
  Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) that a Member of the House was involved in organising the demonstration that violated—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I dealt with the gist of that earlier this evening. We are taking time unnecessarily from the end of the debate.
  Mr. Gray: For the sake of good order, perhaps I can make it plain that I played no part whatsoever in organising the disturbance earlier today. I took no part in it. Of course, I would be the first to decry any illegal activity. That sort of thing should not take place around the Palace. However, the fact that tens of thousands of people are here this evening, making such a noise, shows how important the matter is to them.
  The arguments advanced by most Labour Members are the same tired old arguments. They were exploded by Lord Burns and in the three days of hearings in Portcullis House. They largely ignore the real evidence as inconvenient to their in-built prejudices. The truth is that almost every Labour Member ignored the Bill's content.
  David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: No. I do not have much time.
  This is the first time that I remember every Labour Member, with the sole exception of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), speaking against the principle of a Government Bill on Second Reading. The purpose of a Second Reading debate is to agree with the principle of a Bill, but the Opposition and Labour Members do not. I hope that they have the power of their convictions and join us in the No Lobby.
  Like the hon. Member for West Ham, from whom we heard much, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) concentrated entirely on what they believe to be unacceptable human behaviour. They do not like it. One hon. Member talked about funny coats. Others talked about people with horns. They talked about all kinds of funny behaviour and whether people enjoy hunting, but ignored what is central to the debate—namely, animal welfare. That, and not all those aspects of human behaviour, is what the Bill should be about. The National Farmers Union, which we must believe to have some knowledge of these matters, made its views plain in its briefing, when it said that the Bill
  "in practice would prove to be a disservice to the cause of animal welfare."
  That is because the central question should be that of comparative cruelty.
  The Bill does not seek to define cruelty, so we do not know what cruelty is. We have only the concept of comparative cruelty. When the Minister winds up the debate, will he tell us which method of killing a fox is least cruel? Should one use hounds? Should one shoot it at night at a range of 300 yd, using a shotgun or—the Minister must he clear about this—a rifle, and watch it limp off to die of gangrene? That has been the experience in Scotland, as the hon. Member for Dumfries should
  638
  know. Should one snare it, which is perfectly legal, or poison it or gas it, both of which are illegal? We need to know which of those practices are more, and which less, cruel, and the Bill must take steps to ensure that only the less cruel are allowed. Conservative Members would argue that a swift death after being hunted with hounds is the least cruel.
  The onus should be on the objectors to prove that the practice in question is more cruel than some others. Lord Burns, to name but one, certainly did not do so in the case of hunting. He went to great lengths to say that he did not believe that hunting with hounds was cruel, and the scientists giving evidence in Portcullis House did not say that it was cruel. Cruelty is subjective and comparative, and the Bill entirely fails adequately to define cruelty or utility
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) pointed out in a fine opening speech, the Minister's definition of utility has significantly changed since he wrote us a letter on 10 April. It has become much narrower and harder to achieve. I wonder why that should be. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why he has changed his definition.
  My suspicion is that utility, as defined in the Bill rather than in the letter of 10 April, will prove extremely difficult for most hunts to achieve. Labour Members may well welcome that, but the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) should be aware that if the test of utility is applied according to the strict definition in the Bill, coarse fishing will be outlawed and shooting will be called into question. Coarse fishing has no utility and must, because it involves hooking a fish by its mouth, involve cruelty. Most modern livestock practices would not pass the Minister's test of comparative cruelty and utility, and nor, as several hon. Members have said, would halal butchery, boxing, cigarette smoking and a variety of other activities. Why is the test applied only to hunting with hounds?
  Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that given the Bill's importance to the country people of Britain, it would be reasonable for the Cabinet Minister responsible to be here and to take part in the debate? Is not it unacceptable that the responsibility for both introducing and responding to the debate should be shovelled off on to somebody who has been given that role because no one else wants it? Why is not the Secretary of State here?
  Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend is right—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs makes a dramatic appearance in the Chamber. She has missed the best bits, but at least she is here now to hear her Front-Bench colleague.
  My right hon. Friend makes a good point in that the Bill is being shuffled off into the background and given to a Minister of State to handle, presumably so that he can try to recover his political career, which was so damaged previously. The Secretary of State is a crafty enough politician to have absolutely nothing to do with the Bill; the reaction from her Back-Bench colleagues confirms what a sound decision that was.
  The definition of utility is extremely bad, and as the RSPCA has made plain on several occasions, most recently in an interview in The Daily Telegraph, it would

  639
  seek to extend the ban to both fishing and shooting. If there is to he any usefulness at all in the Minister's golden thread of utility weighed against cruelty, it must be defined much more widely to include species management and habitat improvement, which were both included in April, and should also include economic livelihood, sport and recreation. Some believe that sport and recreation should not be included, but the Bill allows hounds to be used to preserve birds that are being bred for shooting, and the only reason to do so is for sport and recreation. The utility of sport and recreation is therefore recognised in one part of the Bill, and should also be recognised in the parts dealing with hunting with hounds. Comparative cruelty must also be defined much more carefully.
  Conservative Members wish to make it plain that we have no objection at all to the principle of licensing as long as it is a reasonable and liberal regime. After all, 40 hunts use the Ministry of Defence and Forestry Commission land and have been licensed by the Government at least since the last war. Every year, MOD Ministers sign a licence allowing foxhunting on MOD land. We in the hunting world do not like some aspects of those licences, but if vets and scientists oppose certain aspects of hunting, it would be perfectly reasonable to license those aspects to make the rest of it legal.
  The Bill does not begin to address that issue. There ought to be a presumption of innocent until proved guilty. The Government should set out in the Bill the way in which they want hunting of all kinds to be practised, and allow hunts conforming to that code of conduct to continue to hunt. The onus of proof should be on people seeking to end hunting, rather than on people seeking to preserve it. That applies particularly to stag hunting and coursing—why should they be singled out for an outright ban? Why should the Minister's golden thread of balancing cruelty against utility not apply equally to them? If there is what the Minister described as incontrovertible evidence of the cruelty of deer hunting, he must tell us what it is. Why are rats and rabbits exempt? Surely, the golden thread should apply to them just as much as anything else. After all, how will hounds differentiate between rabbits and hares, the killing of which will be illegal? The only thing on which scientists on both sides of the argument agreed on in Portcullis House was that all mammals should be treated equally under the Bill. The Minister has not made such a provision, and has not listened to scientific advice. There is no justification whatsoever for outlawing coursing and stag hunting, and we shall seek to reverse that in Committee.
  The Bill fails to provide a liberal and practical licensing regime, and fails to limit cruelty. Indeed, those of us who know something about these issues, unlike many Government Members, know that it would increase cruelty because of the inherent cruelty of shooting. It fails to allow utility, and achieves the worst of all possible worlds. Like the Bills that went before it, it seeks to impose unjustifiable restrictions on individual freedom, trying to justify itself, but failing, in the name of animal welfare. It is a bad Bill, and we will oppose it on principle.
  Andrew George: As the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members go on about individual freedom, may I ask who has the greatest civil liberty or individual freedom—the person born and brought up in the country, managing the countryside without hunting who is offended by hunting, or the person who arrives from town one day, buys up the land, and declares that he will get pleasure from hunting? Who has the preeminent freedom—the townie or the countryman?
  Mr. Gray: I always thought that the Liberal Democrat party was interested in individual freedom. Apparently, its Front-Bench Members are opposed to the Bill, but its Back-Bench Members are all in favour of it. The hon. Gentleman is all over the place, and we will not bother to respond to his rather silly point.
  This is a very bad Bill. In a free country, it is fundamentally wrong to criminalise innocent citizens for activities that harm no one. That is the important point, and perhaps it is the answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). Hunting may harm animals, but it harms no one. Parliament's first duty should be to defend the rights and legitimate interests of minorities. The Queen's Speech says that Ministers want to resolve the issue of hunting with dogs. I shall tell them how to resolve it—leave it alone. Leave the people of countryside in peace, and respect their liberty and livelihood. Listen to them, and join me in voting against this unnecessary, illiberal and ineffectual Bill.
  Alun Michael rose—
  Mr. Hogg: Object!
  Mr. Speaker: Let me be clear. Is there an objection to the Minister speaking again?
  Mr. Hogg: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: It takes only one objection, and the Minister does not have a right to speak again. [Interruption.] Order. In that case, I shall call a Member from the Government side. Does Martin Salter wish to address the House?
  Mr. Salter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you correct me if I am wrong? I was under the impression that when a right hon. or hon. Member moved a motion, he had the right to reply to it, and did not need leave.
  Mr. Speaker: Parliamentary rules say that the Bill is an Order of the Day, therefore neither the Minister nor any Member has the right to address the House on two occasions if there is one objection. [Interruption.] Order. I am guided by the rules of the House.
  David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course I accept your ruling. Can you

  641
  tell the House whether you recollect, during your time in the House of Commons since 1979, a Minister being refused permission to speak for the second time?
  Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to recall the matter. I am guided by the rules of the House.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are, of course, entirely correct. I do not remember since 1970 anybody having such an objection called against them, but nor do I remember any time when the Government failed to put up two Ministers to defend their own Bill. Do you remember such an occasion?
  Margaret Beckett rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the right hon. Lady please be seated? We shall be here all evening discussing points of order, when I have clearly made a ruling based on the rules of the House. I call the Secretary of State.
  Margaret Beckett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be helpful to the House to know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is at the Agriculture Council in Brussels, from where I have just returned, which is why I was not in the Chamber earlier. I do not believe that even the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) would wish someone who had not heard the debate to reply to it. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was engaged in other parliamentary business.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take another point of order.
  Mr. Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will understand that the matter affects the rural areas of Britain considerably. The Secretary of State is right: she cannot be asked to reply to a debate—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Any further points of order on the matter will delay an hon. Member addressing the House. I call Mr. Salter.
  9.48 pm
  Mr. Salter: Now is not the time for soundbites, but I feel the hand of history upon me. With my short political career, I am gratified that Conservative Members are so anxious to prevent me from speaking, and that Members on the Government Benches are so anxious to prevent me from giving this speech from the Dispatch Box, but I shall have to live with that.
  I have been listening to the debate with interest, for what seems like many years. I have not come armed with a lengthy or prepared speech, but I shall use the time available to me. My views on hunting with hounds are well known. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who said that probably not a single opinion was swayed in the House tonight as
  642
  a result of any argument that was made. However, I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Welsh nationalists and represents somewhere fairly unpronounceable, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), because he put together a coherent argument about why lamping will not necessarily work over waterside nature reserves, and I thank him for that point.
  What I am interested in exploring is whether the fourth Bill on hunting to come before the House in six years will ensure the end of the obscene and barbaric sport of hunting wild mammals with hounds, or whether, as some have said, it is merely an unworkable fudge that pleases no one other than the lawyers and the middle way group. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider that the letter circulated by the middle way group was something of a mixed blessing.
  As a supporter of early-day motion 273, which calls for a total ban on hunting, I can find little to commend in the Bill.
  Dr. Palmer: Both of us support that early-day motion, which my hon. Friend initiated, and have supported earlier early-day motions on the same subject. Does he agree that the Bill gives us the first chance that we have had in our generation to end hunting with hounds? Does he also agree that, whatever its defects, it is an entirely welcome development—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Salter: I thank my hon. Friend for the parts of his intervention that I heard. Most Labour Members have been consistent in calling for a hunting ban, but let us make no mistake: we will resist the blandishments of Opposition Members, because the only way in which we will deliver a ban is to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Opposition Members have been chastising us for making criminals out of people for doing something that is currently legal. Will my hon. Friend confirm my belief that the Bill is not retrospective, so the only people whom it will turn into criminals are those who knowingly break the law in future, once it has been enacted?
  Mr. Salter: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We saw no greater example of thuggery and criminal behaviour than that which was set by the rural yobs who were outside this place earlier. Opposition Members and others in the pro-hunting lobby claim that they are the champions of tradition and law and order, but we saw that they have selective hearing. They will condemn others who break the law. They are the group of people who used to run the country. They still own it, but they cannot come to terms with the fact that they no longer run it.
  Mr. Banks: Does not my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that the arguments mounted tonight about the freedoms of minorities, the right to debate and the exchanges that we have in this House were ruined when my right hon. Friend the Minister attempted to respond to the debate in the logical, cool and

  643
  dispassionate way in which he has attempted to proceed, but found that a sort of neo-Nazi group on the Opposition Benches tried to break it up?
  Hon. Members: Withdraw!
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark. [Interruption.] Order. That term should not be used. I call on him to withdraw his remark. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Banks: I am being encouraged to withdraw the "neo"—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not want him to worry about the "neo". He knows that he must withdraw the term that he used.
  Mr. Banks: Of course, I withdraw. Mr. Speaker. The fact is—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw without reservations and there should be no other remarks. He should withdraw his remark.
  Mr. Banks: I absolutely withdraw it, and I am glad that I have used up a few more minutes.
  Mr. Salter: I can only—
  Dr. Palmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There are no further points of order.
  Mr. Salter: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). I can only assume that he was referring in an over-enthusiastic way to the fact that the British National party was present at the liberty and livelihood march.
  Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend, like me, find it confusing that those who want foxhunting to continue reject the notion of drag hunting, although it could preserve the rural jobs that they are constantly banging on about? Or do they reject it because they like the thrill of the chase, and the sight of blood?
  Mr. Salter: That is interesting. We have heard much from Conservative Members about the prejudice that has been evident in the debate. A number of us, including Ministers, were privileged to visit the New Forest drag hounds a few years ago. We remember the prejudice shown against the New Forest drag hounds by the hunting community, who made it impossible for them to drag hunt over specific tracts of land. I am as alive as any Member to the tactics that the Countryside Alliance and the hunt supporters will use to justify their arguments.
  I may have to do this in Committee or at a later stage, but I want to question the Minister about some of the presumptions behind the Bill. It is presumed that this
  644
  Parliament is competent to rule on issues such as the death penalty, and competent to decide what is or is not treason and who will or will not go to prison—
  Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am glad that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) has had an opportunity to speak, but I am concerned about the fact that we have not heard the Minister's response to the debate. Now that it is permissible to put written ministerial statements on record, is it permissible for the record of today's debate to include the reply that the Minister would have made?
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Minister will find another opportunity.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Salter: I have been extremely generous, and I will now take no more interventions.
  As I was saying, this Parliament is deemed competent to rule on the death penalty; yet for some reason we are being invited to sub-contract the decision on hunting first to a registrar and then to a tribunal including a land manager—how impartial will he or she be?—a veterinary surgeon or a lawyer. When I told my constituents that I would vote for a total ban on hunting with hounds, I meant what I said. Unless I hear much better arguments than I have heard today, I will not vote for a Bill that sub-contracts the decision I make, as a Member of Parliament, to a body that is not elected.
  I also fear that the rich and powerful interests that back the hunting lobby will seek a judicial review of every decision made by the tribunal. There is talk of job losses, but if the Bill is passed unamended there will be a massive growth industry. Lawyers will line their pockets with fat fees. What we see now is the poverty of the argument—
  Keith Hill rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 371, Noes 155.

  Division No. 25]

  [9:58 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Bell, Stuart

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Benn, Hilary

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bennett, Andrew

  Allan, Richard

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Roger

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Best, Harold

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Betts, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Austin, John

  Borrow, David

  Baker, Norman

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Banks, Tony

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Barrett, John

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Battle, John

  Breed, Colin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brennan, Kevin

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Bruce, Malcolm

  645

  Bryant, Chris

  Farrelly, Paul

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Burden, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Burgon, Colin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burnham, Andy

  Flint, Caroline

  Burstow, Paul

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Follett, Barbara

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Cairns, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Galloway, George

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Gardiner, Barry

  Casale, Roger

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Caton, Martin

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Challen, Colin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chidgey, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Harvey, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Cohen, Harry

  Coleman, Iain

  Healey, John

  Colman, Tony

  Heath, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Heppell, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hermon, Lady

  Corston, Jean

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cotter, Brian

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Heyes, David

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Crausby, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Holmes, Paul

  Cummings, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  David, Wayne

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Hutton, rh John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Denham, rh John

  Illsley, Eric

  Dismore, Andrew

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Doran, Frank

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Doughty, Sue

  Jamieson, David

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Efford, Clive

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  646

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Olner, Bill

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keetch, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Organ, Diana

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Owen, Albert

  Kidney, David

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pearson, Ian

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Perham, Linda

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Picking, Anne

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Lammy, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Lepper, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Linton, Martin

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Love, Andrew

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  McDonnell, John

  Rendel, David

  McFall, John

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  McIsaac, Shona

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McKechin, Ann

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooney, Terry

  McNulty, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Ruane, Chris

  McWalter, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Salter, Martin

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Martlew, Eric

  Short, rh Clare

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Singh, Marsha

  Merron, Gillian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michael, rh Alun

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Miliband, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moore, Michael

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

  Moran, Margaret

  Morgan, Julie

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Southworth, Helen

  Mudie, George

  Spellar, rh John

  Mullin, Chris

  Squire, Rachel

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  O'Hara, Edward

  Straw, rh Jack

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Stringer, Graham

  647

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Watts, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  White, Brian

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Tippinq Paddy

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Willis, Phil

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Wills, Michael

  Trickett, Jon

  Winnick, David

  Truswell, Paul

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Ward, Claire

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Dan Norris

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Flight, Howard

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Flook, Adrian

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Forth, rh Eric

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Francois, Mark

  Bacon, Richard

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Baldry, Tony

  Gidley, Sandra

  Barker, Gregory

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bellingham, Henry

  Goodman, Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Grayling, Chris

  Boswell, Tim

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Greenway, John

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Gummer, rh John

  Brady, Graham

  Hague, rh William

  Brazier, Julian

  Hammond, Philip

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burnett, John

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Burns, Simon

  Heald, Oliver

  Burnside, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Burt, Alistair

  Hendry, Charles

  Butterfill, John

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Cameron, David

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Cash, William

  Howard, rh Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, rh Michael

  Clappison, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Collins, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Conway, Derek

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Curry, rh David

  Lamb, Norman

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Lidington, David

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Loughton, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Fallon, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Maclean, rh David

  648

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Spring, Richard

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Steen, Anthony

  Mercer, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Syms, Robert

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Thurso, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Page, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Paice, James

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Paterson, Owen

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Viggers, Peter

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Watkinson, Angela

  Redwood, rh John

  Whittingdale, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Ruffley, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Young, rh Sir George

  Selous, Andrew

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. Douglas Hogg and

  Simmonds, Mark

  Mr. David Wilshire

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:-
  The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 365.

  Division No. 26]

  [10:12 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Curry, rh David

  Bacon, Richard

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Baldry, Tony

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Blunt, Crispin

  Doughty, Sue

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Evans, Nigel

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Brazier, Julian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Flight, Howard

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Flook, Adrian

  Burnett, John

  Forth, rh Eric

  Burns, Simon

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Burnside, David

  Francois, Mark

  Burt, Alistair

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Cameron, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Cash, William

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Grayling, Chris

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Chope, Christopher

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, John

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Grieve, Dominic

  649

  Gummer, rh John

  Paice, James

  Hague, rh William

  Paterson, Owen

  Hammond, Philip

  Pickles, Eric

  Harvey, Nick

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Redwood, rh John

  Heald, Oliver

  Robathan, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Hendry, Charles

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Ruffley, David

  Howard, rh Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Selous, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Jack, rh Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Keetch, Paul

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

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Spring, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Lamb, Norman

  Steen, Anthony

  Lansley, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Leigh, Edward

  Swayne, Desmond

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Syms, Robert

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Thurso, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Trend, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Maclean, rh David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Walter, Robert

  Maples, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mates, Michael

  Watkinson, Angela

  Maude, rh Francis

  Whittingdale, John

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Wiggin, Bill

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wilkinson, John

  Mercer, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Wilshire, David

  Moore, Michael

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Norman, Archie

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Paul Goodman and

  Page, Richard

  Gregory Barker

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Barrett, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Battle, John

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Alexander, Douglas

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Allan, Richard

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Allen, Graham

  Bell, Stuart

  Amess, David

  Benn, Hilary

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Berry, Roger

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Best, Harold

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Betts, Clive

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blackman, Liz

  Austin, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Baker, Norman

  Blizzard, Bob

  Banks, Tony

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Borrow, David

  650

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Doran, Frank

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Breed, Colin

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Brennan, Kevin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Edwards, Huw

  Efford, Ciive

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Bryant, Chris

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Burgon, Colin

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Burnham, Andy

  Follett, Barbara

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Cairns, David

  Foulkes, rh George

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gapes, Mike (llford S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gardiner, Barry

  Carmichael, Alistair

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Casale, Roger

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Caton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Challen, Colin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chidgey, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clelland, David

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Healey, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hermon, Lady

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heyes, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Holmes, Paul

  Crausby, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cruddas, Jon

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cummings, John

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  David, Wayne

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hutton, rh John

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Dawson, Hilton

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Denham, rh John

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  651

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Olner, Bill

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  O'Neill, Martin

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Organ, Diana

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Owen, Albert

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Pearson, Ian

  Perham, Linda

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Picking, Anne

  Kidney, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Plaskitt, James

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Lammy, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lepper, David

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Linton, Martin

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Love, Andrew

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  McCabe, Stephen

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Rendel, David

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McDonnell, John

  McFall, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  McIsaac, Shona

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McKechin, Ann

  Rooney, Terry

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruane, Chris

  McNulty, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  MacShane, Denis

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McWalter, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Salter, Martin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Singh, Marsha

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Miliband, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mole, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Southworth, Helen

  Moran, Margaret

  Spellar, rh John

  Morgan, Julie

  Squire, Rachel

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mudie, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  652

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Ward, Claire

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Straw, rh Jack

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Stringer, Graham

  Watts, David

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  White, Brian

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Willis, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Wills, Michael

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Woolas, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Worthington, Tony

  Truswell, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Dan Norris and

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading).
  The House divided: Ayes 368, Noes 155.

  Division No. 27]

  [10:25 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Breed, Colin

  Ainger, Nick

  Brennan, Kevin

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Allan, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Amess, David

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Bryant, Chris

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Burden, Richard

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Burgon, Colin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Burnham, Andy

  Austin, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Baker, Norman

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Banks, Tony

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Barnes, Harry

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Barrett, John

  Cairns, David

  Battle, John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bell, Stuart

  Caplin, Ivor

  Benn, Hilary

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew

  Casale, Roger

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Caton, Martin

  Berry, Roger

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Best, Harold

  Challen, Colin

  Betts, Clive

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Chidgey, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clapham, Michael

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Borrow, David

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  653

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clelland, David

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Healey, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Heath, David

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Heppell, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hermon, Lady

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corston, Jean

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Cotter, Brian

  Heyes, David

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Hinchliffe, David

  Crausby, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cruddas, Jon

  Holmes, Paul

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  David, Wayne

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Hutton, rh John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Denham, rh John

  Illsley, Eric

  Dismore, Andrew

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Doran, Frank

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Doughty, Sue

  Jamieson, David

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Efford, Clive

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Flint, Caroline

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Follett, Barbara

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kidney, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Lammy, David

  Galloway, George

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Lepper, David

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gerrard, Neil

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Linton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grogan, John

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hain, rh Peter

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonnell, John

  Hanson, David

  McFall, John

  654

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McIsaac, Shona

  McKechin, Ann

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Rooney, Terry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McNulty, Tony

  Ruane, Chris

  MacShane, Denis

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McWalter, Tony

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Salter, Martin

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Martlew, Eric

  Singh, Marsha

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Miliband, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moran, Margaret

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Julie

  Southworth, Helen

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Spellar, rh John

  Mudie, George

  Squire, Rachel

  Mullin, Chris

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Straw, rh Jack

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stringer, Graham

  Olner, Bill

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stunell, Andrew

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Organ, Diana

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Owen, Albert

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Perham, Linda

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Picking, Anne

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Plaskitt, James

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Pollard, Kerry

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Trickett, Jon

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Truswell, Paul

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Ward, Claire

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Watts, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Rendel, David

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  655

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Woolas, Phil

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Willis Phil

  Wills, Michael

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Dan Norris and

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hendry, Charles

  Bacon, Richard

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Baldry, Tony

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Howard, rh Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hunter, Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Jack, rh Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Keetch, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Burnett, John

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Burns, Simon

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burnside, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burt, Alistair

  Lansley, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Cameron, David

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Cash, William

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Lidington, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Clappison, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Collins, Tim

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maclean, rh David

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Curry, rh David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Maples, John

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Mates, Michael

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Maude, rh Francis

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Mercer, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Moore, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fisher, Mark

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Norman, Archie

  Flook, Adrian

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Ottaway, Richard

  Francois, Mark

  Paice, James

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Redwood, rh John

  Grayling, Chris

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Greenway, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gummer, rh John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hague, rh William

  Ruffley, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Harvey, Nick

  Selous, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  656

  Shepherd, Richard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Viggers, Peter

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

  Walter, Robert

  Watkinson, Angela

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wiggin, Bill

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spring, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Wilshire, David

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Streeter, Gary

  Swayne, Desmond

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Syms, Robert

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tredinnick, David

  Gregory Barker and

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Paul Goodman

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Hunting Bill

    HUNTING BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Hunting Bill:

    HUNTING BILL (PROGRAMME)
      Committal
      1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

      Proceedings in Standing Committee
      2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13th February 2003.
      3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
      Consideration and Third Reading
      4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
      5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
      6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

      Other proceedings
      7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
      The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 165.

      Division No. 28]

      [10.38 am

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Banks, Tony

      Ainger, Nick

      Barnes, Harry

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Barrett, John

      Alexander, Douglas

      Battle, John

      Allan, Richard

      Bayley, Hugh

      Allen, Graham

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Bell, Stuart

      Benn, Hilary

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Berry, Roger

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Best, Harold

      Austin, John

      Betts, Clive

      Baker, Norman

      Blackman, Liz

      657

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Borrow, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Efford, Clive

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Breed, Colin

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brennan, Kevin

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Flint, Caroline

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Follett, Barbara

      Bryant, Chris

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Burgon, Colin

      Burnham, Andy

      Foulkes, rh George

      Burstow, Paul

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cairns, David

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Caplin, Ivor

      Godsiff, Roger

      Casale, Roger

      Goggins, Paul

      Caton, Martin

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Challen, Colin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chidgey, David

      Grogan, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clelland, David

      Heppell, John

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heyes, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hinchliffe, David

      Colman, Tony

      Hodge, Margaret

      Connarty, Michael

      Holmes, Paul

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Corston, Jean

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Crausby, David

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cummings, John

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Hutton, rh John

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      David, Wayne

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jamieson, David

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Denham, rh John

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Doughty, Sue

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      658

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Plaskitt, James

      Kidney, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lammy, David

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lepper, David

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Levitt Tom (High Peak)

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rendel, David

      Linton, Martin

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Love, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonnell, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McFall, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      McKechin, Ann

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Salter, Martin

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sawford, Phil

      McNulty, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacShane, Denis

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sheridan, Jim

      McWalter, Tony

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McWilliam, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Martlew, Eric

      Soley, Clive

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Southworth, Helen

      Merron, Gillian

      Spellar, rh John

      Michael, rh Alun

      Squire, Rachel

      Miliband, David

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Miller, Andrew

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mole, Chris

      Stringer, Graham

      Moran, Margaret

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Morgan, Julie

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mudie, George

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      O'Hara, Edward

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Olner, Bill

      Trickett, Jon

      O'Neill, Martin

      Truswell, Paul

      Öpik, Lembit

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Organ, Diana

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Owen, Albert

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pearson, Ian

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Perham, Linda

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Picking, Anne

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      659

      Ward, Claire

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Watts, David

      Woolas, Phil

      White, Brian

      Worthington, Tony

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Willis, Phil

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wills, Michael

      Dan Norris and

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Greenway, John

      Amess, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Gummer, rh John

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Hague, rh William

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hammond, Philip

      Bacon, Richard

      Harvey, Nick

      Baldry, Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Barker, Gregory

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Heald, Oliver

      Bellingham, Henry

      Heath, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hendry, Charles

      Boswell, Tim

      Hermon, Lady

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Brady, Graham

      Howard, rh Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Jack, rh Michael

      Burnett, John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Burns, Simon

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Burnside, David

      Keetch, Paul

      Burt, Alistair

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Butterfill, John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Cameron, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Lamb, Norman

      Cash, William

      Lansley, Andrew

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Leigh, Edward

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Chope, Christopher

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lidington, David

      Collins, Tim

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Conway, Derek

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Cotter, Brian

      Loughton, Tim

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      MacKay, rh Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Maclean, rh David

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Maples, John

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Mates, Michael

      Evans, Nigel

      Maude, rh Francis

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Field. Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mercer, Patrick

      Flight, Howard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Flook, Adrian

      Forth, rh Eric

      Moore, Michael

      Francois, Mark

      Moss, Malcolm

      Garnier, hon Edward

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Norman, Archie

      Gidley, Sandra

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Goodman, Paul

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Paice, James

      Grayling, Chris

      Peterson, Owen

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Pickles, Eric

      660

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Thurso, John

      Redwood, rh John

      Tredinnick, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Ruffley, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Sanders, Adrian

      Walter, Robert

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Watkinson, Angela

      Selous, Andrew

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Shephard rh Mrs Gillian

      Whittingdale, John

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Shepherd, Richard

      Wiggin, Bill

      Simmonds, Mark

      Wilkinson, John

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Willetts, David

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

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Wilshire, David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Young, rh Sir George

      Steen, Anthony

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Syms, Robert

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Taylor, John(Solihull)

      Hugh Robertson

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    HUNTING BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Hunting Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
    (1)the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
    (a)any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in connection with the Act, and
    (b)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment, and
    (2)the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    The House divided:Ayes 338, Noes 98.

    Division No. 29]

    [10:50 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Berry, Roger

    Alexander, Douglas

    Best, Harold

    Allan, Richard

    Betts, Clive

    Allen, Graham

    Blackman, Liz

    Amess, David

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Borrow, David

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Austin, John

    Breed, Colin

    Baker, Norman

    Brennan, Kevin

    Banks, Tony

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Barnes, Harry

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Barrett, John

    Battle, John

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Bryant, Chris

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Burden, Richard

    Benn, Hilary

    Burgon, Colin

    661

    Burnham, Andy

    Foulkes, rh George

    Burstow, Paul

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Gardiner, Barry

    Caborn, rh Richard

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Cairns, David

    Gerrard, Neil

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Gidley, Sandra

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Caplin, Ivor

    Goggins, Paul

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Casale, Roger

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Caton, Martin

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Challen, Colin

    Hain, rh Peter

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Chidgey, David

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hanson, David

    Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Healey, John

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Heath, David

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Heppell, John

    Clelland, David

    Hermon, Lady

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hesford, Stephen

    Cohen, Harry

    Heyes, David

    Coleman, Iain

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Colman, Tony

    Hinchliffe, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Hodge, Margaret

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Holmes, Paul

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Corston, Jean

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Cotter, Brian

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Crausby, David

    Cruddas, Jon

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Cummings, John

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    David, Wayne

    Jamieson, David

    Davidson, Ian

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Denham, rh John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Doughty, Sue

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Keetch, Paul

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kidney, David

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Efford, Clive

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Farrelly, Paul

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lamb, Norman

    Flint, Caroline

    Lammy, David

    Follett, Barbara

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Lepper, David

    Leslie, Christopher

    662

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Rendel, David

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Linton, Martin

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Love, Andrew

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ruane, Chris

    McCabe, Stephen

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    McDonnell, John

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    McFall, John

    Sanders, Adrian

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McIsaac, Shona

    Sawford, Phil

    McKechin, Ann

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    McNamara, Kevin

    Skinner, Dennis

    McNulty, Tony

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    McWalter, Tony

    McWilliam, John

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Mallaber, Judy

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

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

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Soley, Clive

    Martlew, Eric

    Southworth, Helen

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Spellar, rh John

    Merron, Gillian

    Squire, Rachel

    Michael, rh Alun

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Miliband, David

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Miller, Andrew

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Mole, Chris

    Stringer, Graham

    Moore, Michael

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Moran, Margaret

    Stunell, Andrew

    Morgan, Julie

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mudie, George

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Mullin, Chris

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Tipping, Paddy

    O'Hara, Edward

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Olner, Bill

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    O'Neill, Martin

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Trickett, Jon

    Organ, Diana

    Truswell, Paul

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Owen, Albert

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Perham, Linda

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Picking, Anne

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Plaskitt, James

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Ward, Claire

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Watts, David

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    White, Brian

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Willis, Phil

    663

    Wills, Michael

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Winnick, David

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncastet C)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Woolas, Phil

    Dan Norris and

    Worthington, Tony

    Mr. Nick Ainger

    NOES

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Bacon, Richard

    Lidington, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Boswell, Tim

    Loughton, Tim

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    MacKay, rh Andrew

    Burnett, John

    Maclean, rh David

    Burnside, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Burt, Alistair

    Maude, rh Francis

    Cameron, David

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Cash, William

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Chope, Christopher

    Norman, Archie

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Collins, Tim

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Conway, Derek

    Paice, James

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Paterson, Owen

    Robathan, Andrew

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Duncan Smith, rh Iain

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Evans, Nigel

    Ruffley, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Selous, Andrew

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Flight, Howard

    Soames, Nicholas

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Flook, Adrian

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Forth, rh Eric

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Francois, Mark

    Swayne, Desmond

    Garnier, hon. Edward

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Syms, Robert

    Goodman, Paul

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Grayling, Chris

    Thurso, John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Tredinnick, David

    Gummer, rh John

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Viggers, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Watkinson, Angela

    Hendry, Charles

    Whittingdale, John

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Wilshire, David

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Howard, rh Michael

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Young, rh Sir George

    Jack, rh Michael

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Gregory Barker and

    Leigh, Edward

    Mr. Bill Wiggin

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    SELECT COMMITTEES
    Motion made and Question Proposed,
    That
    (1) Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to Government departments) be amended as follows:
    In the Table
    Item 7, column 2, leave out from 'Office;' to 'and administration' in line 7 of that item;
    After item 8 insert

    'Lord Chancellor's Department

    Lord Chancellor's Department (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments)

    11';

    and
    (2) the Order of 5th November 2001 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be amended as follows: Paragraph (2), after 'International Development' insert 'Lord Chancellor's Department'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Hon. Members: Object

    COMMITTEES
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions 7 to 10.
    Ordered,

    COMMITTEES
      EDUCATION AND SKILLS
      That Mr John Baron be discharged from the Education and Skills Committee and Mr Robert Jackson be added to the Committee.
      ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
      That Mr Eric Martlew and Mr Mark Todd be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Ms Candy Atherton and Mr Mark Lazarowicz be added to the Committee.
      OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER:HOUSING, PLANNING, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
      That Alistair Burt be discharged from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions and Mr John Bercow be added to the Committee.
      WELSH AFFAIRS
      That Chris Ruane be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Mr Huw Edwards be added to the Committee.— [ Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    PETITION

      Hunting with Dogs
      11.2 pm
      Mr. Paul Truswell: Having just witnessed the Second Reading of the Bill that many people hope will herald the end of hunting in this country, I rise to present a petition signed by more than 2,800 of my constituents and others calling for the abolition of hunting with dogs, making specific reference to deer, hares, foxes and mink. It was collected over a relatively short period, and it is certain that many more signatures could have been secured had that been the objective of the exercise.
      The petition states:
      To the House of Commons
      The Petition of Residents of Pudsey Constituency and others,
      Declares that hunting foxes, deer, hares and mink with dogs is a cruel and barbaric practice that has no place in a civilised society.
      The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to ban hunting with dogs.
      And the Petitioners remain etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Coalfields (Education)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  11.3 pm
  Jeff Ennis: I am delighted to have succeeded at long last in the ballot for this important Adjournment debate. I can tell the House that I have been trying for at least a year to secure this debate. Before turning to the issue of education in the coalfields, may I be the first Member to congratulate the Minister for School Standards on the recent football award that he won for scoring a goal at Newcastle? I am sure that he will enlighten the House further when he comes to reply to the debate—[Interruption.] Yes, I know.
  The coalfields of Britain are still an important area despite the fact that most pits have now closed. The coalfields are substantial, and range from Fife and Ayrshire in Scotland through the north-east, west Cumbria, Yorkshire, Lancashire to the midlands, and the Welsh valleys. There are even coalfield communities not so far from here, in Kent. In total, Britain's coalfields have about 5 million people living in and around them. What is more, they are strong Labour communities, commonly known as the heartlands, so the Government ignore their voice at their own peril.
  The main stimulus for this debate was the publication in September 2000 of a report commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills from Tony Gore and Nicola Smith of Sheffield Hallam university, entitled "Patterns of educational achievement in the British coalfields." The four main findings of the research that I draw to the attention of the House are, first and foremost, that the proportion of pupils achieving five or more GCSE passes at grades A to C is 7 to 10 percentage points below the national average.
  Secondly, educational attainment in the coalfields tails off badly in the mid-teen years, between the ages of 14 and 16. In primary schools, the gap between performance in the coalfields and the national average is relatively small and has tended to narrow over time. Thirdly, there is no evidence that performance in the mid-teen years relative to the national average is getting any better. Lastly, even among those staying on in full-time education beyond 16, performance in the coalfields still lags behind the rest of the country.
  There is no suggestion in the research that the coalfields are unique. A number of comparator industrial areas show similar evidence of underachievement, but the research concludes:
  "Although none of the individual coalfield areas may be amongst the worst performing in the country when compared with some inner city LEAs, the consistency of the shortfall between the figures and the national averages, especially at secondary level, gives cause for concern."
  The report also states:
  "Further action is required, especially directed at those in their teenage years. The geographical scope of such action needs to be wider than a small number of schools or a limited selection of relatively small neighbourhoods."
  For mining areas, the issue is a great worry, because it is in our children that the future welfare of our communities lies. The widespread closure of the pits in the 1980s and 1990s brought mass unemployment and
  666
  social decline to many parts of Britain, none more so than in my area. In 1984 we had 10 pits employing 12,000 workers, and more importantly, the prospect of well-paid steady jobs in the coal industry for the young people of our towns. Less than 10 years later, all 10 pits were shut and a whole generation of workers was effectively written off as surplus to requirements by the previous Tory Administration.
  Why do we have a record of underachievement in many of our coalfield areas? I suspect that one of the main causes of the problem is historical. At school-leaving age, young men and women could rely on getting a job at the pit or in its related industries. There was no need for qualifications, as the Coal Board provided on-the-job training throughout one's career, so there was a great tradition of schooling in coalfield areas. The most able children went into professional careers, such as management and surveying. The middle tier became electricians and fitters at the pit, and the less skilled became faceworkers or worked on the pit top or in haulage and so on.
  Now times have changed, and the only way young people will get decent, well-paid jobs is if they are adequately qualified. The research is worrying. Without action by the Department for Education and Skills, another generation could go the way of the previous one. I do not deny that the present Government, more than any other before them, have made education their top priority. Government initiatives such as the literacy and numeracy hours are making a tremendous impact on the overall levels of attainment throughout Britain. However, good as these policies are, they are national policies from which all our children benefit, but they do not address the problem of the gap in performance that exists between the coalfields and the rest of the country.
  In the coalfields and in other areas where performance lags badly, there need to be extra, targeted initiatives if those areas are ever to catch up with the rest of the country. I have mentioned the success of the literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools. Another Government initiative that has been extremely successful at both primary and secondary level has been education action zones. The Barnsley education action zone, which was set up in 1998, was one of the first 12 nationally. It contained 21 schools—three secondary schools, 16 primary schools, one special school and one nursery school. I should like to highlight the record of achievement of one of the schools in that zone, which is situated in my patch: Willowgarth high school in Grimethorpe. Willowgarth's improvement has been greater than the zone average. It has moved from a record of 13 per cent. of pupils gaining five A to C passes in 1998 to 35 per cent. in 2001. That is a remarkable increase of almost 200 per cent. in its success rate in less than four years. I had the privilege of presenting the annual achievement awards at Willowgarth some two weeks ago. It was a delight to see the look of satisfaction and pride on the faces of all the children and parents.
  Achieving educational success is not the big mystery that it is sometimes made out to be. It is about a motivated work force, both teaching and non-teaching, working in harmony with the students and, equally as importantly, with parents and the local community, so that the school becomes a focus for local pride. That is what is now happening at Willowgarth. Before the

  667
  education action zone was established, Willowgarth never came higher than 12th out of the 14 secondary schools in Barnsley in its record of achievement. It is now fifth out of 14—an incredible performance that speaks for itself.
  Another important feature of Willowgarth's success is the fact that 35 per cent. of pupils leaving the school were accredited with work-related key skills. Some 90 per cent. of pupils leaving in 2001 did so with an accredited information and communications technology qualification—either a GCSE pass or a GNVQ—helping better to equip the children for the world of work.
  In my opinion, the main reasons why the EAZ has been so successful at Willowgarth are the broadening of the curriculum to include more GNVQs and the extension of the school day to support targeted students. It is that sort of support, which the EAZ staff have provided, that is vital to continuing educational success in the coalfield areas, especially via the excellence in cities initiatives, which are now superseding many of the larger EAZs.
  Incidentally, Willowgarth high school has submitted a bid for technology specialist school status. I endorse the bid and commend it to the Minister.
  While I am on the subject of specialist schools, I should like to point out that all coalfield MPs were delighted with the Secretary of State's recent announcement that greater flexibility would be given with regard to achieving the £50,000 private sponsorship level. I know from my constituency's experience that that has acted as a major barrier to schools in coalfield areas in bidding for specialist school status. I have personally campaigned on the issue for some considerable time.
  An exception to the £50,000 sponsorship rule can, however, be found in my constituency. Ridgewood school in Scawsby in Doncaster has submitted a bid to become one of the country's first engineering specialist schools. The bid has struck a chord with local businesses. Given Doncaster's international reputation as a centre of engineering excellence, that does not surprise me. After all, great steam engines such as the Flying Scotsman, the Mallard and the Blue Peter were all built in Doncaster. Some 70 local employers have already signed up to the bid and 20 have offered financial support, ranging from an offer of £150 from a small company to one of £10,000 from a major local engineering employer.
  Ridgewood's record of achievement is very impressive. This year, it achieved a 65 per cent. rate in those gaining five GCSE passes with A to C grades. That was the second best record of any school in Doncaster. From a social inclusion perspective, more than 90 per cent. of the students achieved five A to G grades. Every student in the sixth form at Ridgewood was entered for exams and the school achieved the outstanding success rate of 100 per cent., with every student getting at least one A to G grade. That is also fantastic.
  As I understand it, only a handful of schools nationally are so far bidding for engineering specialist school status. I commend Ridgewood's bid to the Minister as an exceptional one.
  It would be remiss of me not to mention Doncaster's desire to become an education city. This is an excellent initiative, putting education at the heart of Doncaster's
  668
  future regeneration. It is an extremely interesting project, co-sponsored by Doncaster council, Doncaster college and Huddersfield university. As the Minister probably knows, I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, which will go to Doncaster in the new year to look at the education city project.
  Another successful initiative from which both Barnsley and Doncaster have benefited is the implementation, in recent years, of education maintenance allowances. They have made a big difference to the staying-on rate among pupils over 16, especially in Doncaster, where there has been a 5 per cent. increase. I was delighted to learn that from next April EMAs will be rolled out nationally. As I am sure the Minister knows, my Select Committee has recommended that consideration be given to extending EMAs to higher education. I strongly support that idea.
  There is no doubt that there is a major funding crisis in higher education that the Government must address. I am glad that they seem to be moving away from the idea of top-up fees, which I know would be very unpopular with students and parents alike. My bottom line is this: I will support the system that will take more students from poorer backgrounds to university. That should be the Government's main objective in trying to deal with the funding crisis. So far, we have signally failed to achieve that goal. I believe that tuition fees have produced a major barrier to higher education, particularly for students from mining communities.
  The Minister may well say "How can that be, as 40 per cent. of students do not pay tuition fees?" I would give two main reasons. First, a cash culture is still very prevalent in coalfield areas, which probably contain the highest percentage of people without bank accounts. Cash is still the key in those communities. Secondly, but more important, there is still an anti-debt culture in the coalfields as a direct consequence of the 1985 miners' strike. Many mining communities and families were brought to their knees financially by that strike, and it will be some time before the anti-strike attitude disperses.
  It is for those reasons that I am becoming more in favour of a graduate tax, or an end-loading rather than a front-loading of student debt. I also feel strongly, however, that not just graduates should bridge the current funding crisis in higher education; the Government have a responsibility to play their part.
  So far I have tried to highlight the Government's many achievements for the coalfield areas, but what more can be done? I would like the Government to consider two issues in particular. First, in response to the 1998 coalfield taskforce report commissioned by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Education and Skills has introduced no measures targeted specifically at the need to raise performance in coalfield schools and colleges. The coalfield communities campaign, which I am pleased to say is based in Barnsley and represents more than 80 local education authorities, would like the Government to consider measures intended specifically for coalfield areas, given the scale of the current problem of under-achievement.
  Secondly, the most important deviation from the Government's "one size fits all" approach has been the introduction, in 1998, of the excellence in cities

  669
  initiative, which set a precedent by targeting areas where educational achievement lags behind. The trouble is that most coalfield areas tend not to be cities. The classic mining communities usually have a population of between 2,000 and 10,000, so most coalfield areas fail to qualify for this important source of special support. The Government must seriously consider rolling out the relevant features of the excellence in cities initiative to all coalfield areas—and I mean all of them.
  In the coalfield communities, a generation of older workers has been discarded through the running down of the mining industry. The Government must not discard a younger generation of people in the same communities through failing to enable them to achieve acceptable educational standards.
  11.20 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) on not only his outstanding speech tonight but the passion with which he speaks on the Floor of the House, in the Select Committee on Education and Skills and elsewhere. On my first appearance before the Select Committee in June, he asked me about some of the issues that he raised tonight. He pursues them diligently. He knows, although other hon. Members may not, that I shall appear before the Committee again on Wednesday. I look forward to continuing the conversation with him then.
  I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), and the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) are present. I congratulate them on staying here at this late hour for an important debate and providing moral support for me as well as for my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough. I hope that I would have been present for the debate, even if I were not the Minister answering it because South Shields is a former mining constituency. Many of the issues that my hon. Friend raised also affect my constituency.
  The meeting of the coalfield communities campaign to which my hon. Friend referred, and at which the educational research was first published, was held in the town hall in South Shields. I spoke at the conference, and I perceive such issues as critical in changing structures and cultures in my constituency.
  My hon. Friend mentioned some important data that were produced jointly by the Department and the coalfield communities campaign under the Department's sponsorship. That independent research dealt with educational attainment in coalfield areas. It is unfortunately true that although pupils in our constituencies fare well at primary school and do some outstanding work, by the time they reach secondary school and key stage 3, which covers 11 to 14-year-olds, GCSE and beyond, attainment falls well below national averages.
  The research that we commissioned warned against a specific "coalfield effect", and highlighted other parts of the country where similar under-performance occurs.
  670
  However, my hon. Friend made a powerful case to show that specific factors are at play. For example, the lack of investment in the coalfield areas in the past 20 years, especially in the 1980s, had a devastating effect and the speed of economic collapse left little time for the planning that is necessary to deal with major industrial change.
  My hon. Friend did not have much time to congratulate the teachers and pupils in Barnsley on their outstanding work. I hope that he will forgive me if I take a few moments to do that. In the middle of much discussion of problems, we should not forget that teachers, head teachers, support staff and pupils work in schools in the coalfield areas day in, day out for 38 weeks a year. Some achieve remarkable results. My hon. Friend may know the figures that I am about to cite, but perhaps other hon. Members do not. In Barnsley, at key stage 2, which covers 11-year-olds, the number of children who read, write and count well when they leave primary school increased by 11 per cent. in the three years to 2001. In maths, the percentage of children who do well has increased from 55 per cent. to 63 per cent., and for science, the figure increased from 64 per cent. in 1998 to 82 per cent. in 2001. Those are significant advances.
  Just under 30 per cent. of 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds gained five A to C grades at GCSE in 1998. In 2001, that had increased to more than 35 per cent. My hon. Friend referred to the outstanding work of the education action zone in Barnsley. The higher than average rates of improvement in that zone are testimony to the power of Government intervention and to the potential that exists in those communities. The young people who are growing up there have the potential to do well in education.
  In the education action zone, the number of seven-year-olds who read to the expected standard has increased by 12 per cent., compared with a national average of 4 per cent. in the past three years. There are similar figures for 11-year-olds: there has been a 16 per cent. rise in the number of young people doing well at that age. The effects are, however, less marked at secondary level than at primary level, and that is the issue that my hon. Friend is highlighting in this debate.
  I want to focus the second half of my remarks on the challenge that we face in the secondary sector. In the spirit of harmony that is prevailing in the Chamber at the moment, I shall start with some more good news about Barnsley. My hon. Friend will remember that, in 1999, 28.6 per cent—nearly a third—of children in Barnsley were failing to get five grades A to C at GCSE. I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker, I meant to say that the percentage of lower-attaining schools was nearly one third. Two years later, that percentage had been halved. The number of schools where less than 25 per cent. of pupils were getting five good GCSEs had been halved in the space of two years. We await this year's statistics with—well, I was going to say trepidation, but, in the light of the figures that I have just given, I should say that we await them with anticipation, because I am confident that the outstanding performance of the young people and teachers in the area will continue.
  Like my hon. Friend, we want to go further in raising the performance of young people in the coalfield areas, because the truth is that they do not just need average

  671
  levels of performance; they need to perform above the average level if they are going to overcome some of the disadvantages that are placed in their way. I want to highlight for my hon. Friend four issues that we are focusing on over the next three years to tackle some of the problems. The first relates to the quality of school leadership—not just the head teacher but the senior management team, comprising 12 to 15 people in any primary school. We want to ensure that they are of the highest quality, and have the proper training and support. As part of the excellence in cities group, schools in Barnsley will be receiving £125,000 a year extra for the next three years, specifically for leadership development, because we all know that the leadership of a school is a critical factor in raising performance.
  Secondly, we want more schools to have access to the specialist schools programme and to share their facilities and their excellence. I can tell my hon. Friend that 20 per cent. of secondary schools in coalfield areas are now specialist schools, and I am delighted to say that, of the four bids for engineering college status, two have come from coalfield areas. I hear what my hon. Friend has said about Willowgarth and Ridgewood, and I will certainly look carefully at the applications that have been made. In fact, they are already being carefully scrutinised. I would trespass into dangerous territory if I said anything further on that, but I promise him that there will he due diligence in the assessment of those bids.
  I hope that my hon. Friend was pleased by the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the development of a partnership fund to help to bridge the sponsorship gap in cases in which schools have worked hard to build the links with the outside community that are important to a successful secondary school and can lead to the motivation and development of curriculums and programmes that support young people's achievement, but in which there has been a problem in raising the full funds. We want to help to bridge that gap, and the partnership fund will help to do that.
  The third priority for us is the reform of the school work force. My hon. Friend referred to the range of professionals who work in schools. Obviously, there will be the head teacher, the teachers and the caretaker, but there will also be learning mentors who come in to support young people, language specialists, and sports coaches who come in to support teachers and help young people. That is a major part of the agenda, and I am pleased to say that funding for young people in Barnsley will have risen from an average of £2,840 per pupil in 1996–97 to £3,850 by 2005–06. The preponderance of that money will be in the hands of the head teachers to spend on a range of staff—not just teachers; other support staff as well—to make the most of the learning opportunities for young people.
  Our fourth priority is to develop partnership beyond the classroom. My hon. Friend referred fleetingly to the important role of parents, and I completely agree with his points about supporting good behaviour and high aspiration. The role of outside bodies, notably universities, is also important in helping to broaden the horizons of young people and to give them the
  672
  confidence to aim high in terms of higher education or high-quality vocational education. This is not just a matter of programmes and structures; it is also a matter of culture. Too many young people think that university is beyond them, when in fact they have the brains to do well. We need to do a better job of helping them to gain access to information on what is good about university life. We also need to ask the universities to play a more proactive role in helping to raise standards within schools. There is major work to be done in linking our higher and further education institutions with our secondary schools. That is the way to provide the role models that will help young people to believe that they can move on and achieve a lot.
  On challenging the poverty of aspiration that has at times marred some coalfield communities, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that 15 of the 72 education action zones and 13 of the 58 excellence in cities areas are in coalfield communities. I very much take his point about the need to extend the excellence in cities programme and its success beyond cities. That is why we are developing the excellence clusters programme to take care of smaller areas, which are not defined as a city but which can benefit from the strands of work at the heart of that programme.
  My hon. Friend also referred to education maintenance allowances, and I know that he has campaigned for a long time for the nationwide outreach of that programme. I can confirm that that will happen next year.
  The debate is drawing to a close, so I should point out that we on the Labour Benches—I am sure that I can speak also for the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price)—are all committed to every single child. We believe that every single child is special and that every single child has a talent and a potential to fulfil. It is the job of the education system to help to develop that talent to the full. Some children face greater barriers than others, and the Government's job is to help them to overcome those barriers. We recognise that and the need to address the issue, which involves funding as well as programmes. It also involves a culture of achievement, which must go from the top of the education system to the bottom.
  I reject wholeheartedly the terrible English curse according to which, somehow, more means worse and that more achievement represents a dilution of standards. I say the opposite—more achievement is testimony to the hard work of children and the skills of their teachers. If any proof of that were needed, I know from my research for the debate that there is already a beacon school in Barnsley, Darfield Upperwood primary, whose outstanding performance has delivered a better education not just for its own pupils, but for other pupils in the area.
  That is the theme behind much of what we are doing. Let us not confine excellence to the few; let us spread it to the many, because the many have potential as well as the right to see it fulfilled.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.

DEFENCE

  AFB 130A
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers signed an AFB130A in each year since 1997. [87254]

  Dr. Moonie
  An Army Form B130A (AFB130A) is completed when soldiers are to be discharged under the following Queen's Regulations 1975:9.398—On termination of engagement
  9.403—Having been convicted during Army service by a civil court of an offence committed before enlistment
  9.404—Misconduct
  9.405—Retention undesirable in the interests of the service
  9.411—Not required for further Army service
  9.413—Not required for a full Army career
  9.414—Services no longer required

  The overall total discharged under these paragraphs for which an AFB130A was completed in each year since 1997 is as follows:

  Number discharged

  1997

  1,520

  1998

  1,531

  1999

  1,270

  2000

  1,500

  2001

  1,677

  2002

  1,092

  Total

  8,590

  It should however be noted that an AFB130A may have been signed in other cases in which discharge action was terminated. These figures are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Amphibious Groups
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the state of availability is of Royal Navy amphibious groups. [84367]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy is able to mount an Amphibious Task Group within the readiness requirements of Defence Planning Assumptions from high readiness units earmarked for the Joint Rapid Reaction Force.

  Barracks (Right of Access)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances at(a) Deepcut and (b) Catterick Barracks specified areas of the camp may be declared out of bounds; and what safeguards are in place to ensure a soldier's right of access to (i) the regimental medical office, (ii) the Padre, (iii) the unit
  508W
  welfare officer, (iv) the local army welfare worker and (v) the Women's Royal Voluntary Service Welfare Office. [86075]

  Mr. Ingram
  At both Deepcut and Catterick, certain areas of the camps and surrounding areas are placed out of bounds to personnel for security, health and safety or similar reasons, on a temporary or semi-permanent basis. The offices specified in the question would only be placed out of bounds in exceptional circumstances, such as a security alert or other emergency. None of these offices are routinely out of bounds and all personnel have unrestricted access during normal opening times.

  Beaufort Trench Outlet Pipe
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what environmental tests have been made in relation to the outlet pipe in the Beaufort Trench; and what assessments have been made of(a) human health and (b) the immediate area surrounding the River Dee and (c) contamination of (i) land and (ii) aquatic and ornithological life. [85446]

  Dr. Moonie
  holding reply Monday 9 December 2002: I will write to my hon Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  British Forces Broadcasting Service
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make arrangements to allow England rugby and football matches to be watched on the British Forces Broadcasting Service. [86902]

  Dr. Moonie
  The British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) is provided through a contract let by the Ministry of Defence with the Services Sound and Vision Corporation (SSVC), which is an independent limited company with charitable status. The service provides, subject to practicality and affordability, radio and television broadcasts to most locations overseas where significant numbers of British forces are stationed, such as Germany and Cyprus, together with areas of deployed operation such as Afghanistan. There are currently two radio and two television channels, although the second TV channel, which is specifically aimed at the 18–30 age group, is at present only available to deployed operational areas, eg Balkans, Middle-East, Afghanistan.

  Authority to transmit any particular television or radio programme or sporting vent rests with the Rights Holder for the programme or event concerned and all broadcasters, including SSVC, must negotiate accordingly with Rights Holders for licences to broadcast.

  SSVC already provides live television coverage of all England (and other Home Nation) international rugby and football matches, subject to scheduling practicalities where fixtures clash, and makes arrangements to do so with the Rights Holders through the primary broadcaster, eg the BBC, ITV etc.

  SSVC and the Ministry of Defence are working to further develop the BFBS with a view to providing additional television channels including, in due course, a dedicated sports channel.

  Defence Spending (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the defence budget was spent in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available(a) in actual terms and (b) as a percentage of the total defence budget; and if he will make a statement. [86394]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's initiatives which are designed to achieve best value for money. [85457]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence continuously reviews its business processes and organisation to ensure that military capability is delivered with best value for money for the taxpayer. As part of the 2002 spending review, the MOD agreed the following Public Service Agreement value for money target for 2002–03 to 2005–06:"Increase value for money by making improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the key processes for delivering military capability. Year on year output efficiency gains of 2.5% mil be made each year from 2002–03 to 2005–06."
  A wide range of initiatives is in hand to achieve this target, and to deliver business improvement generally across defence on a continuous basis. Key improvements include the following initiatives:
  By 31 March 2006, to reduce by an average of 6 per cent. the per capita cost of training a successful military recruit to the agreed standard.
  Achieve 0 per cent. average annual cost growth (or better) against the Major Equipment Procurement Projects, while meeting customer requirements.
  By 31 March 2006, to reduce by 20 per cent. (relative to April 2000, 14 per cent. relative to April 2002) the output costs of the Defence Logistics Organisation, while maintaining support to the Front Line.

  Facility

  Improvement made

  14 and 15 Docks

  The construction of seismically qualified dock structures, caissons and cradles for the submarines to sit in. 14 Dock has also been adapted to accommodate the new Astute class submarines.

  New Equipment and Maintenance Support Facility (NEMSFAC)

  New shared facility for maintenance and storage of equipment.

  Power Range Testing Berth (PRT)

  Upgraded berth at which the refuelled reactors are first tested after refit.

  Low Level Refuelling Facility (LLRF)

  New facility used to store new and used fuel for all submarines.

  Nuclear Transfer Route(NTR)

  To enable access between the refueling docks and LLRF. In place for 14 Dock, work in hand for 15 Dock.

  Cranes

  Seismically qualified dockside cranes fitted to 14 Dock; installation work about to commence for 15 Dock.

  Electrical services to submarine berths

  Ring main around dockyard upgraded.

  Drug Testing
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the reserves tested positive for controlled substances when last tested; what the date was of the last tests; and what percentage of force strength this represents; and if he will make a statement. [86584]
  510W
  By 31 March 2006, to reduce MOD Head Office and other management costs by 13per cent.
  By 31 March 2006, to identify for disposal land and buildings with a net book value of over £300 million.

  Performance against the targets will be reported annually through the Department Performance Report. Further information on the MOD's value for money Public Service Agreement target is available on the MOD website www.mod.uk.

  Depleted Uranium
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to substitute depleted uranium rounds with safer and equally penetrative rounds; and if he will make a statement. [86388]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently no plans to substitute DU rounds. At present no satisfactory alternative material exists to achieve the level of penetration needed to defeat the most modern battle tanks. DU ammunition therefore currently remains our most operationally effective capability and the use of non-DU ammunition would significantly threaten operational success and would potentially lead to increased United Kingdom casualties. However, I can confirm that research is continuing into more effective alternatives to DU ammunition.

  Devonport Dockyard
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what major improvements have been made to the facilities for non-Vanguard submarines at Devonport dockyard; and if he will make a statement. [86709]

  Mr. Ingram
  A contract was placed with Devonport Management Ltd in 1997 to upgrade their existing facilities to provide the sole refitting and refuelling facilities for Vanguard and all other Royal Navy nuclear submarines.

  The major improvements made to date to the specific facilities for non-Vanguard submarines, or to facilities shared by both Vanguard and non-Vanguard submarines, are as follows:

  Dr. Moonie
  When in full time service with Regular units and formations, reservists of all three services are tested on the same random basis as their Regular counterparts. Only the Army randomly test reservists serving in reserve units. During the period 1 January 2002 to 31 October 2002,1,342 Territorial Army
  511W
  personnel were tested, of whom nine tested positive (0.67 per cent. of those tested). Individual Army reservists are also tested on mobilisation when they report to the Reserves Training and Mobilisation Centre. During the same period 971 tests were conducted of which 13 tested positive (1.34 per cent. of those tested).

  Executive Agencies (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Army Base Repair Organisation; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and if he will make a statement. [86406]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 1 December 2002, the total number of staff employed by ABRO, formerly known as the Army Base Repair Organisation, was 2587. Of these, 143 individuals were employed in Stirling, ABRO's sole workshop facility in Scotland.

  The forecast total pay cost of ABRO staff for the current financial year of 2002–03 was, as of 1 December 2002,£57.048 million. This figure includes £ 3.179 million for Stirling.

  Firefighters
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel he estimates will lose money by standing in as firefighters during the dispute. [85411]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has a comprehensive pay and allowance package in place that includes various reimbursement and compensatory allowances. There should be no "losers" under this arrangement but it is possible that some individuals, as their circumstances change (e.g. different types of separation, no longer living away from home etc.) might move from one set of allowances to another— because their compensation needs are different. MOD is aware that there may be some individuals who will or may have been temporarily withdrawn from career courses and would seek to address any potential financial loss sympathetically.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to implement the conclusion of the General Affairs Council of 19 November 2002 that, in relation to ECAP, it would be useful to continue to inform the public on this progress. [86616]

  Mr. Hoon
  Ministers will continue to inform the public of progress on the European Capabilities Action Plan (ECAP) through speeches, Ministry of Defence publications, and other means as appropriate.

  Grievance Complaints
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many formal grievances for(a) bullying and (b) harassment have been made by his Department's employees in each of the last five years; and how many of these have been upheld in favour of the complainant. [86987]
  512W
  Dr. Moonie
  No central records of complaints of harassment and bullying made by civilian staff are maintained by the Ministry of Defence. The MOD procedures encourage the informal resolution of harassment and bullying complaints with the assistance of line manager and personnel managers and trade union representatives. Where complaints become formal they are resolved within the alleged offender's line management chain. There is no requirement for complaints to be reported centrally, and it would be disproportionately expensive to collect the information requested.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gulf War veterans are being paid disability pensions for war-related illnesses; what those illnesses are; how many veterans are suffering from each illness; and how many Gulf War veterans have died of war-related illnesses since 1991. [87105]

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

  Helsinki Process
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the shortfalls identified by the Helsinki Process Catalogue and the actions being undertaken to remedy them; and if he will make a statement. [86615]

  Mr. Hoon
  European Union members have so far met 104 of the 144 capability targets in the Helsinki Headline Catalogue. The shortfalls are:

  Air to Air Refuelling

  Attack Helicopter

  BDA (operational level)

  Carrier Based Air Power

  Civil Military Co-operation

  Combat Search and Rescue

  Cruise Missiles and Precision Guided Munitions

  Deployable Communication Modules

  Early Warning and Distant Detection Strategic Level

  General Cargo Aircraft

  General Cargo Shipping

  General Maintenance Engineering

  General Support Engineering

  General Support Logistics

  Headquarters (OHQ, FHQ, CCHQ) and Augmentees

  Light Infantry Brigade HQ and Augmentees

  Light/medium Armoured Companies

  Maritime Medical Evacuation Units

  Medical Collective Protection Role 3

  Medical Role 3

  Military Intelligence Units

  Military Police

  Multinational Joint Logistic Centre and Augmentees

  513W

  NBC

  Out Sized Transport Aircraft

  Press Info Group

  PSYOPS

  Recovery/Maintenance

  RO-RO

  Special Operational Forces

  Strategic ISR IMINT Collection

  Strategic ISR SIGINT Collection

  Support Helicopters

  Suppression of Enemy Air Defence

  Surveillance and Target Acquisition/Unmanned Air Vehicles

  Surveillance and Target Acquisition Units

  Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence.

  Theatre Surveillance and Reconnaissance and Air Picture

  Theatre Surveillance and Reconnaissance and Ground Picture

  Transport Units.

  Key

  Acronym

  Explanation

  BDA

  Battle Damage Assessment

  CCHQ

  Component Command Headquarters

  FHQ

  Force Headquarters

  HQ

  Headquarters

  IMINT

  Imagery Intelligence

  ISR

  Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance

  MN

  Multinational

  NBC

  Nuclear Biological Chemical

  OHQ

  Operation Headquarters

  PSYOPS

  Psychological Operations

  RO-RO

  Roll On-Roll Off

  SIGINT

  Signal Intelligence

  Work is under way to address the remaining targets through the European Capabilities Action Plan (ECAP). About half of these are regarded as significant. ECAP has made steady progress, with 18 multinational panels of experts so far launched, covering 21 shortfalls. The panels will report in March 2003.

  Hercules C130J (Afghanistan)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Hercules C130Js are deployed in Afghanistan; and on what mission. [86901]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is one C130J Mark 4 aircraft currently deployed in Afghanistan, carrying out a variety of military transport tasks.

  HMS Cattistock
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the repair cost will be of HMS Cattistock; when the ship will return to service; and if he will make a statement. [85694]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following her impact with the jetty at Portsmouth on 23 November 2002, HMS Cattistock is currently in dock at Portsmouth undergoing preparations for her repair by Fleet Support Ltd. It is estimated that the work will take about four weeks, and be completed in January 2003. Cattistock will then be available for operational tasking. The Warship Support Agency's initial estimate of the cost of repairs is £250,000.

  Iraq (Hostile Fire)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British aircraft have experienced hostile fire from Iraqi military installations during each of the last 12 months. [85821]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: Attacks by Iraqi air defence weapons on coalition aircraft conducting legitimate patrols of the No Fly Zones are not recorded against individual nations. The number of recorded confirmed attacks on coalition aircraft in the period were as follows. It is believed actual figures may be significantly higher.

  Number of attacks

  December 2001

  6

  January 2002

  21

  February

  15

  March

  2

  April

  8

  May

  32

  June

  50

  July

  57

  August

  68

  September

  88

  October

  24

  November

  65

  Manning Control Reviews
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers who were subject to a manning control review and subsequently transferred to he S-type engagements, were discharged at the end of their engagements and under what Queen's Regulations they were discharged broken down by regiment, in each year since 1997. [87255]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of soldiers discharged following Manning Control review, who subsequently transferred to an S-type and were discharged at the end of their engagements are listed by discharge paragraph (Queen's Regulation) as follows:

  Total

  9.373—by right, having given appropriate notice (less than 12 years service)

  1997

  0

  1998

  0

  1999

  1

  2000

  1

  2001

  0

  2002

  0

  Total

  2

  9.387—ceasing to fulfil Army medical standards

  1997

  0

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  2

  2001

  0

  2002

  0

  Total

  2

  515W

  Total

  9.389—by right, having given the appropriate notice (12 years and less than 22 years service)

  1997

  2

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  1

  2001

  0

  2002

  0

  Total

  3

  9.393—on completion of engagement

  1997

  4

  1998

  8

  1999

  13

  2000

  14

  2001

  9

  2002

  4

  Total

  52

  9.399—at the soldier's request—on payment (12 years and less than 22 years service)

  1997

  0

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  0

  2001

  1

  2002

  0

  Total

  1

  9.414—services no longer required

  1997

  1

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  0

  2001

  0

  2002

  0

  Total

  1

  Due to the low numbers involved, this information is not broken down by Regiment as requested, because this could identify individuals and breach disclosure and confidentiality policy. I am therefore withholding that information under Exemption 12 (Privacy of an Individual) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what DASA outflow code number refers to manning control. [87256]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Analytical Services Agency outflow code which refers to discharge following Manning Control Review under Queen's Regulations 1975 9.413 'Not required for a full Army career,' is 262.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers subject to manning control are on the reserve list and could be called up for deployment; and if he will make a statement. [87257]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are 1,917 individuals who have been discharged following Manning Control Review who are currently on the reserve list, arid who may be liable for call-out depending on their status.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army personnel were issued with manning control warning certificates in each of the last 10 years, broken down by regiment. [87258]
  516W
  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 27 November 2002,Official Report, columns 332–34, which reported the number of soldiers discharged under Queen's Regulations paragraph 9.413 "Not required for a full Army career" in each of the last 15 calendar years and by Regiment. These individuals would also have been issued with manning control warning certificates.

  Naval Establishments (Unauthorised Entry)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the incidents of unauthorised entry into(a) Royal Naval and (b) Royal Marines establishments in the UK in each of the last five years, showing (i) the numbers of intruders involved, (ii) the number of arrests made, (iii) the number of convictions secured and (iv) the number of cautions given in each case. [86482]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information on all incidents of incursion is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Some information is held by the MOD Police on incidents of incursion. As it will take some time to gather this data I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  NBC Training and Equipment
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much funding he has allocated to NBC training and equipment; whether he has plans to increase this funding; which regiments have specialist NBC training; what plans he has to extend that training; and if he will make a statement. [84853]

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

  All armed forces personnel are given training to protect themselves in a nuclear, biological and chemical military environment, as part of their basic training. This is refreshed at regular intervals. For financial year 2002–03 the full resource cost of operating the Defence Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Centre (DNBCC) Winterborne Gunner, which is the tri-service nuclear, biological and chemical training establishment, is expected to be approximately £4 million.

  The Joint Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Regiment is specifically trained to provide the UK's armed forces capability in biological weapon detection, chemical and nuclear survey and reconnaissance and personnel decontamination in a deployed military NBC environment. The cost of operating the regiment for financial year 2002–03 is planned to be approximately £24.5 million.

  The level of NBC related funding and training is kept under constant review as part of the normal management process.

  Operation Southern Watch
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF aircraft have been assigned to Operation
  517W
  Southern Watch; how many were fully serviceable in (a) May 2002, (b) August 2002 and (c) November 2002; and if he will make a statement. [85373]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The number of airframes assigned to Operation Resinate— the United Kingdom contribution to Operation Southern Watch—depends on the operational task, which may change. In each of May, August and November 2002 the number varied between 15 and 17.

  Serviceability varies daily, and is collated at weekly reporting points. The figures below are indicative, based on the closest flying day to the first reporting point of each month.

  On 2 May 2002 three airframes were unserviceable.
  On 2 August 2002 two airframes were unserviceable.
  On 7 November 2002 no airframes were unserviceable.

  Unserviceability is usually corrected by straightforward maintenance prior to the next mission. Through the period from May 2002 to date unserviceability has had no significant impact on our ability to meet the operational task.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what major(a) variations and (b) delays there have been to the private finance initiative contract for the (i) Tidworth Water and Sewerage, (ii) RAF White Fleet, (iii) MHE Vehicles and (iv) Hazardous Stores Information System (HSIS); what the cost has been of the changes; whether the partners in the PFI were required to meet these costs; and if he will make a statement. [87132]

  Mr. Ingram
  As this information is not held centrally, I will write to the hon. Member once it has been collated 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 what major variations and delays there have been to the Private Finance Initiative contract for(a) the Commercial Satellite Communication Service, (b) Tornado 6R4 Simulator, (c) Hank Simulator, (d) DAFS Helicopter Flying School, (e) Germany White Fleet and (f) Marine Support to Range and Aircrew Services since they were signed; what the cost has been of such changes and delays; which partners in the PFIs were required to meet these costs; and if he will make a statement. [86934]

  Mr. Ingram
  As this information is not held centrally, I will write to the hon. Member once it has been collated, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF Bases
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total station operating budget was for each RAF base in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [86384]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the RAF operating budgets for each of the United Kingdom RAF stations for Financial Year 2002–2003. It does not include 518W
  former RAF stations that have retained their name but which have been transferred to the ownership of another part of the Ministry of Defence.

  Station Name

  Operating Costs (£ million)

  RAF Bentley Priory

  5.6

  RAF Boscombe Down (Support Unit)

  6.2

  RAF Boulmer

  22.9

  RAF Brampton/Wyton/Henlow

  39.5

  RAF Buchan

  19.4

  RAF Brize Norton

  141.6

  RAF Coltishall

  66.0

  RAF Coningsby

  66.8

  RAF Cosford

  64.2

  RAF Cottesmore

  59.9

  RAFC Cranwell

  141.7

  RAF Digby

  5.7

  RAF Fylingdales

  14.9

  RAF Halton

  41.0

  RAF High Wycombe

  18.0

  RAF Honington

  71.0

  RAF Innsworth

  12.4

  RAF Kinloss

  109.4

  RAF Leeming

  67.7

  RAF Leuchars

  64.6

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse

  22.7

  RAF Lossiemouth

  100.6

  RAF Lyneham

  128.4

  RAF Marsham

  98.5

  FSCTE Manston

  5.1

  RAF Neatishead

  17.1

  RAF Northolt

  21.8

  RAF Sealand

  6.6

  RAF Shawbury

  63.8

  RAF Spadeadam

  7.8

  RAF Stafford

  33.1

  RAF St. Mawgan

  49.1

  RAF St. Athan

  3.6

  RAF Uxbridge

  12.0

  RAF Valley

  40.5

  RAF Waddington

  75.2

  RAF Waddington

  75.2

  RAF Wittering

  52.4

  AWR Tain, Pembrey Sands, Holbeach, Donn a Nook, Wainfleet

  3.0

  Note:

  The figures given in the table include the budget for any minor unit for which the station is responsible.

  Salaries
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the defence budget salaries represent what the total sum was for(a) uniformed services and (b) MOD civilian employees; and the percentage paid out in (i) Scotland and (ii) overseas. [86010]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: Information on the defence budget, salaries as a proportion thereof and the breakdown of salary costs between military and civilian personnel for financial year 2001–02 is provided in the Ministry of Defence Consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts for that year.
  519W
  Information on the defence budget and salaries as a proportion thereof for the current financial year is provided in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 2002–03 to 2003–04—Ministry of Defence". The breakdown between military and civilian personnel is estimated to be broadly similar to that in 2001–02.

  Copies of the above documents are available in the Library of the House.

  The percentage of salaries for service and civilian personnel paid in Scotland and overseas is in the table:

  Percentage

  Service personnel

  Civilian personnel

  Scotland

  7.0

  8.4

  Overseas

  19.6

  3.1

  Sea Harrier
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the purpose was of the exercise held in Poland earlier this year involving FA2 Sea Harriers from 801 Naval Air Squadron; how the FA2 performed against MiG29 aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [86443]

  Mr. Ingram
  The purpose of exercise Lone Kestrel was to promote understanding between two nations with emerging military links as part of the NATO exchange programme. This programme seeks to enhance interoperability between NATO units in order to enhance the combat effectiveness of the Alliance.

  The Sea Harrier FA2 flew a variety of missions with Polish aircraft. Its performance was commensurate with the high standards of operations expected from the United Kingdom Forces and 801 Squadron gained valuable training from the exercise.

  I cannot go into specific details on how the Sea Harrier FA2 performed against the MiG 29 aircraft during Exercise Lone Kestrel and am withholding this information under Exemptions 1a and 1b of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information which relates to defence.

  Sergeant Major Andrew Gavaghan
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the(a) service career and (b) postings of Sergeant Major Andrew Gavaghan who served at Deepcut Barracks in 1995–96. [86079]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is personal data protected by the Data Protection Act 1998, and cannot be released without the individual's consent. The information is also withheld in accordance with Exemption 12, privacy of an individual, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Type 23 Frigate
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the respects in which there has been an increase in the availability of Type 23 frigates since the completion of the 1998 Strategic Defence Review,520W
  referred to in the letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the hon. Member for Aldershot of 2 December. [86484]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Type 23 Frigate was designed with the expectation of spending a high proportion of its operational time in the demanding and stressing environment of the North Atlantic. The nature of the threat has evolved with resultant changes to operational priorities and deployments, the consequence of which is that these ships spend less time in the North Atlantic. An opportunity has therefore arisen to extend the interval between major maintenance periods. Improved processes for the specification and management of equipment maintenance are also being introduced. The collective effect of these developments will be to increase the availability of Type 23 Frigate capability for operations.

  University Air Squadrons
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many students flew at least one hour with the university air squadrons in the last year for which records are available. [86979]

  Dr. Moonie
  720 students are known to have flown at least one hour with the university air squadrons last year. This figure consists of 640 student pilots and 80 student navigators.

  The university air squadrons also contain engineer, medical and dental students—a total of 300—who are being sponsored through university by the Royal Air Force to meet other specialist requirements. These branch members will have been offered occasional flights, but these could be less than an hour in length.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of students who flew with the university air squadrons subsequently joined the RAF in each of the last five years. [86980]

  Dr. Moonie
  The 15 university air squadrons recruit up to 300 potential pilots every year in order to achieve their annual target of training, up to Elementary Flying Training Standard, the 80 to 90 graduate pilots required by the first stage of the Flying Training System.

  The recruited figure may seem high, but is necessary to meet the Royal Air Force's needs. Predictably, a number will drop out at an early stage, as they find they do not have the aptitude, do not enjoy the experience, fail the initial medical, or have difficulty meeting the concurrent demands of a difficult degree course and membership of a university air squadron.

  For those that remain, a commitment to join the Royal Air Force is nurtured and Squadron Commanders have instructions as to how to proceed, should they form the view that a student does not intend to apply to join the Royal Air Force.

  Specifically at the end of the student's second year, the Squadron Commander will release him or her, should it become apparent that the student has no intention of applying to join.
  521W
  The following statistics are available for the past three years—the Royal Air Force did not operate such a comprehensive recording system before financial year 2000.

  2000–01

  The number of students that started the final year of university air squadron training totalled 125. Of these 90 went on to join the Royal Air Force.

  2001–02

  The number of students that started the final year of university air squadron training was 113. Of these 91 went on to join the Royal Air Force.

  2002–03

  The number of students now in their final university air squadron year total 120, of these 90 have so far joined the Royal Air Force.

  This reply is limited to those university air squadron members that are potential pilots and have undertaken formal flying training. It does not cover members who may have received limited air experience flights, such as potential engineers or medics, or potential navigators who receive a limited amount of flying training.

  Wind Farms
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations from hon. Members of the European Parliament or the devolved administrations his Department has received about objections by his Department to wind farm planning applications. [86634]

  Dr. Moonie
  Our records show that, in the last 12 months, the Ministry of Defence has received twenty letters from Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and none from hon. Members of the European Parliament.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with(a) the British Wind Energy Association and (b) British business about radar interference and wind farms. [86635]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence are members of a Steering Group on Wind Energy chaired by the Department of Trade and Industry. The other members of the Group are the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Wind Energy Association and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Group discusses the issues relating to aviation safety that wind turbines can present and has produced an Interim Guidelines document "Wind Energy and Aviation Interests55 to assist all those involved in the wind energy industry.

  The MOD devotes significant resources to the consideration of wind farm proposals prior to formal planning. Between July 1996 and November 2002, ourexperts considered some 1,900 proposals from developers for wind farms across the United Kingdom and consequently have had many meetings with Wind Energy developers about concerns regarding specific proposals including radar interference.
  522W
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further action he is taking to identify possible(a) onshore and (b) offshore wind farm sites about which his Department would have concerns to do with interference with radar. [86636]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is working towards a number of improvements in the way it processes proposals. We aim to increase engagement with the wind industry, for example, where minor adjustments to the siting of turbines may result in an objection being withdrawn. We will also provide more central guidance to those reviewing applications and publicise a help line for the industry. MOD is ready to engage with Regional Chambers as the latter move towards considering optimum sites for the siting of wind farms in the longer term when drawing up their regional energy strategies.

  MOD has also reviewed recently the scope for giving developers a clearer picture of the specific areas of the country where onshore windfarm proposals may cause problems. There remains an unavoidable requirement to examine all applications in some detail before decisions can be made on any likely detriment to defence interests.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what budget his Department has for conducting research into the impact wind farms have in terms of radar interference. [86637]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence are members of a Steering Group on Wind Energy chaired by the Department of Trade and Industry. The Steering Group discussions led the DTI to commission research by QinetiQ into the effect of wind turbines on radar and MOD are giving assistance whenever required. The department has no specific budget for conducting research into the impact wind farms have on radar.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with other NATO countries about the impact wind farms have in terms of interference with radar. [86638]

  Dr. Moonie
  No formal discussions dedicated to wind farms have taken place with other NATO countries.

PRIME MINISTER

  Boundary Committee
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has written recently to the Boundary Committee concerning its recommendations. [86724]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not written recently to the Boundary Committee.

  Civil Service
  David Burnside
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will merge the Northern Ireland civil service with the home civil service. [87273]

  The Prime Minister
  There are no plans to do so.

  Foreign Regimes
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2002,Official Report, columns 906–07, what other states he has assessed as possessing appalling, brutal and terrible regimes. [87308]

  The Prime Minister
  It is clear from the evidence in the Iraq human rights dossier that Iraq merits special attention. Iraq is the only state to have used weapons of mass destruction against its own people and its neighbours.

  We have serious concerns about a range of other countries. These are set out in the FCO's Annual Report on Human Rights 2002, as laid before Parliament on 26 September 2002.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department is investigating the report submitted by Iraq to UNMOVIC in respect of its weapons programmes and military infrastructure; which United Kingdom experts have been given responsibility to undertake the assessment; what expertise they have in each case; and if he will make a statement on the Iraqi documentary declaration. [87585]

  The Prime Minister
  Iraq's declaration is being studied by analysts at the Ministry of Defence. The principal experts involved in this work have studied Iraq's weapons programmes for a number of years.

  Maritime Safety
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on departmental responsibility for the safety of(a) passengers, (b) employees of the operators of the pier and (c) employees of the operators of the ship while (i) embarking on and (ii) disembarking from a ship at a port in Scotland. [87513]

  The Prime Minister
  Health and safety and maritime matters are reserved to the UK Government. Ship operations are regulated by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, an Executive Agency of the Department for Transport. Dock operations, which include the embarkation and disembarkation of passenger and crew, are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive, which is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister what the minimum size of property portfolio is which is covered by the Ministerial Code. [87227]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of the Cabinet's letter of 11 December 2002 to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Poland
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Poland. [87011]
  524W
  The Prime Minister
  I discussed a wide range of issues, including the EU enlargement negotiations, when I met Leszek Miller in London on 26 November 2002. After our meeting, I announced that Polish nationals will be eligible to enter the UK as au pairs. The Government have since announced that we will extend to citizens of Poland, and the other EU member states, from their accession on 1 May 2004, the full rights to work in the UK as enjoyed by existing EU citizens, a subject that Leszek Miller raised with me.

  Scottish Fishing Industry
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the state of the Scottish fishing industry at the Copenhagen summit. [87130]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I gave in the House today.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Football Training Facilities
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Football Association on its involvement in the provision of football training facilities. [85584]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have regular meetings with the Football Association to discuss the provision of grass roots training facilities through the Football Foundation. The Foundation benefits from Lottery funding from Sport England and the New Opportunities Fund. The provision of training facilities for professional players is the responsibility of the football authorities and individual clubs.

  Museums
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support her Department gives to small local and regional museums. [85585]

  Tessa Jowell
  We will be providing £70 million for regional museums from this year until 2005–06.

  Extra funding will also be made available to the national museums to enable them to work in partnership with regional museums. Additionally, there will be funds from the Department for Education and Skills to support museums' education.

  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins
  If she will take steps to increase funding of regional museums. [85596]

  Tessa Jowell
  We will be providing £70 million for regional museums fro this year until 2005–06.

  Extra funding will also be made available to the national museums to enable them to work in partnership with regional museums. Additionally, there will be funds from the Department for Education and Skills to support museums' education.

  Olympic Games
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will support the London bid for the 2012 Olympics. [85586]
  525W
  Tessa Jowell
  The Government's decision on whether to support a bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games in London will be made early next year.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received regarding the possibility of bidding to hold the Olympic Games in London in 2012. [85594]

  Tessa Jowell
  Officials from my Department have held regular meetings during this year with the Greater London Authority, London Development Agency, the British Olympic Association, UK Sport and Sport England to discuss the implications of London bidding to host the 2012 Olympic Games. In addition, the relevant Government Departments have been involved in assessing the ARUP report on the Costs and Benefits of a 2012 London Olympic Bid.

  I have met the Mayor of London and will continue to meet the British Olympic Association and other non-Government stakeholders to discuss the practicalities of such a bid.

  Licensing Bill
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the costs to be incurred by churches in applying for licences to host live music performances at their venues as a result of the provisions in the Licensing Bill. [85587]

  Dr. Howells
  Costs incurred by churches under the licensing regime proposed in the Licensing Bill would depend on the licensable activities, if any, which are undertaken and their frequency. The Regulatory Impact Assessment, published at the same time as the Licensing Bill and placed in the Libraries of both Houses, estimates that an application for a premises licence under the new regime will cost between £100 and £500, with an annual charge of between £50 and £150.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received on her plans to reform the public entertainment licence since the publication of the Licensing Bill. [85590]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has received a number of representations from hon. and right hon. Members, members of the public, including musicians and Morris dancers, and from companies and organisations.

  In addition, a large number of correspondents have written in support of the hon. Member's Early Day Motion 1182, the aims of which will be implemented by the Licensing Bill which is currently before Parliament.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the costs that will be incurred by live music venues if they wish to continue hosting live music performances at their venues as a result of the provisions in the Licensing Bill. [85592]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the proposed new regime, the cost of a premises licence would remain the same whether it solely covered the sale of alcohol or included any number of additional licensable activities, such as the provision of live music. The estimated fees in the Regulatory Impact Assessment, published with the 526W
  Licensing Bill, were between £100 and £500 for an application for a premises licence with a subsequent annual charge of between £50 and £150. Fees would be set centrally by the Secretary of State in secondary legislation.

  BBC3
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department will take to ensure that BBC3 does not dilute the quality of programmes on BBC1 and BBC2. [85588]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend's approval for BBC3 includes strong and wide-ranging conditions to ensure that the channel is distinctive and innovative. These include specific requirements that delivery of the BBC3 schedule must not be at the expense of programmes on BBC 1 and 2 for the same age group, and that new programmes commissioned for BBC3 will be made available to enhance programming on BBC1 and BBC2.

  Tourist Authorities
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with relevant regional and sub-national organisations regarding the reorganisation of the tourist authorities for England. [85591]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Regional Development Agency Chairs on 27 June 2002 to discuss their new strategic role in tourism. We both met RDA and Regional Tourist Board representatives and the Local Government Tourism Executive at Tourism Fora in November 2001 and April 2002, and at the Hartwell House seminars in October 2001 and July 2002, in which reorganisation was discussed.

  Communications Bill
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the changes she has made to the draft Communications Bill as a consequence of pre-legislative scrutiny. [85593]

  Tessa Jowell
  As I explained at the Second Reading of the Communications Bill on 3 December 2002, "we accepted more than 120 of [the] 148 recommendations of the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill". For the detail of the changes made to the Bill as a result, I refer the hon. Member to Appendix 4 of the explanatory notes that were published alongside the Bill, as well as our response to the Committee.

  Entertainment Licences
  Dr. Brian Iddon
  If she will reduce the cost of entertainment licences for pubs and clubs. [85595]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the current public entertainment licensing system, local authorities have set charges that can vary by thousands of percent from area to area, even for similar activities carried out at similar premises. It would not be uncommon, for example, for one authority to charge £150 for a licence and another to charge £20,000 or more for the same permission.
  527W
  Under the proposed new regime, however, the cost of a premises licence would remain the same whether it solely covered the sale of alcohol or included any number of additional licensable activities, such as the provision of live music. The estimated fees in the Regulatory Impact Assessment published with the Licensing Bill were between £100 and £500 for an application for a premises licence with a subsequent annual charge of between £50 and £150. Fees would be set centrally by the Secretary of State in secondary legislation. The assessment estimates that the hospitality and leisure industry would save £1.97 billion over the first ten years that the new regime is in operation.

  Advisory Bodies (Membership)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the membership is of the(a) Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection, (b) Advisory Council on Libraries, (c) Architectural Heritage Fund, (d) Arts Council of England, (e) British Film Institute, (f) British Library Board, (g) British Tourist Authority, (h) Crafts Council, (i) the Board of English Heritage, (j) English Tourist Board, (k) the Board of the Horniman Museum, (l) Independent Television Commission, (m) Library and Information Commission, (n) the Board of the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester, (o) National Film and Television School, (p) National Lottery Charities Board, (q) National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, (r) Public Lending Right Advisory Committee, (s) Reviewing Committees on the Export of Works of Art, (t) Radio Authority, (u) Royal National Theatre, (v) S4C and (w) Treasure Valuation Committee. [87010]

  Dr. Howells
  The membership of bodies for which my Department is responsible is set out in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Annual Report 2002, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The National Lottery Charities Board is now known as the Community Fund and the Library and Information Commission has been replaced by Resource. Additionally, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State is responsible for the membership of half of the board of the Architectural Heritage Fund. The full list of members is as follows:

  Jane Sharman CBE (Chair)

  Robert Clow

  John Heritage Pavitt

  William Cadell

  Merlin Waterson

  Colin Amery

  Nicholas Baring

  David Adams QBE

  Malcolm Crowder QBE

  Roy Dantzic

  Fionnula Jay-O'Boyle MBE

  Roger Wools

  The Secretary of State is not responsible for the membership of the National Film and Television School, Royal National Theatre and Crafts Council, who make their own appointments. Members of the British Film Institute are appointed by the Film Council. Details of membership of these organisations should be available from the bodies.

  Avro Vulcan XH558
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations her Department has received regarding the project to restore Avro Vulcan XH558. [86840]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]To date the Department has received 75 letters and emails regarding the Avro Vulcan.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations the Heritage Lottery Fund has received regarding the project to restore Avro Vulcan XH558. [86841]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]The Heritage Lottery Fund received three letters from interested parties and two letters from hon. Members while the application was being assessed. In addition, 128 hon. Members signed an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons, which was noted during the assessment process. Following the Trustees' decision not to support the project, the Heritage Lottery Fund has to date received 732 emails and letters of support for the project.

  Digital Services
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the rules regarding advertising digital services on the BBC. [85571]

  Tessa Jowell
  The BBC does not broadcast advertisements but it does broadcast information about its public services, including, of course, its digital services. This activity is carried out subject to the provisions of the BBC's commercial policy guidelines.

  First Flight Commemoration
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what lottery money has been earmarked for(a) events and (b) causes commemorating the centenary of the first manned flight; and if she will make a statement. [86844]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]The Heritage Lottery Fund has not earmarked funds to commemorate the centenary of the first manned flights. However, it would welcome applications for projects which meet its priorities as set out in its application packs.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost of providing free television licences to those aged over 75 years in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years was. [87333]

  Dr. Howells
  Free television licences for people aged 75 and over first became available in November 2000. The cost of free licences issued in Northern Ireland was £6.5 million in 2000–01 and £8.3 million in 2001–02.

  Heritage Lottery Fund
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what account the Heritage Lottery Fund takes of correspondence from the public in reaching its decisions; and if she will make a statement. [86842]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]The Heritage Lottery Fund looks for evidence that the project is supported by the local community in which it is situated. It will also look at letters of support it receives for the project from the public, or further evidence which applicants are able to give it about the level of public support for their proposals. It also will take into account views of interested parties, particularly those who may be closely affected by a funding decision. However, this does not alter the consideration it must n give to each request for funding against the stated criteria, and against the specific issues outlined in the application pack. Letters of support received after a decision is reached are noted, but cannot affect a decision retrospectively.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how often the Heritage Lottery Fund has reversed a decision not to award lottery funding to a cause; what reasons were given; and if she will make a statement. [86843]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]The Heritage Lottery Fund has an independent Reviews and Complains Committee Organisations which feel that their application for a grant has not been considered fairly or properly can ask for the Committee to review it. The Committee has reviewed 33 cases over the last five years, and asked the Board (or the Heritage Lottery Fund Committee that took the original decision) to look again at its decision on four occasions. On two occasions a decision was reversed. In the first instance, after careful reflection, the Board concluded that the application comprised a number of unique features of heritage merit which, in combination, warranted support. In the other case, the Committee drew attention to a misunderstanding of project costs and partnership funding which altered the level of grant requested by the applicant. This resulted in the then Committee for the English Regions concluding that the application now offered value for money and awarded a grant.

  Independent Radio
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to promote independent radio production; and if she will make a statement. [85582]

  Tessa Jowell
  The BBC has voluntarily committed itself to a 10 per cent. quota for independent production on its network sources. I welcome the following statement in which the BBC re-affirms its commitment to independent producers, and demonstrates that the BBC is giving further consideration to the scope of the services included in the quota, and the arrangements for reporting against it. The Government shall keep the position under review as the radio market develops.
  530W
  BBC Radio and Independent Production
  "The BBC acknowledges the significant contribution independent producers have made to network radio output over the past 11 years. We remain fully committed to our voluntary pledge that 10 per cent. of eligible hours on our nation al analogue networks will be made by independents. We also wish publicly to emphasise that we will continue to view this 10 per cent. commitment as a floor not a ceiling. We believe that our behaviour over the past five years highlights this attitude and we will work to open up commissions, where appropriate to independent producers in order to develop the UK production sector.
  In the past our 10 per cent. voluntary commitment has not applied to our national English language analogue radio services for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are looking at how we could develop a similar voluntary commitment to that which already exists for our analogue network services. We believe that we would be able to commit publicly to an appropriate level of commissioning from the independent sector across the English language services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In doing so we must take account of the existing market conditions in order to determine a realistic and sustainable level at which to set such a commitment. We also need to consider how we balance most effectively our ambition to support the development of the independent production sector in the nations in the context of our wider commitment to production in the Nations.
  Given current levels of take-up of digital radio across the country we do not yet feel able to extend a commitment for a particular level of independent commissioning for our new digital services. However, it is our hope that as take-up of digital radio grows and these services mature, we will be able to invite independent producers to provide content for these services where appropriate.
  We intend to report fully on both the hours we commission from independent producers and our spend on independent production across our analogue radio networks in our annual review.
  We hope that these commitments will act to strengthen the positive and constructive relationship with independent producers which we already enjoy."

  Licensing
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  What representations she has received from churches on the potential impact of the proposed new licensing arrangements for live performances. [85581]

  Dr. Kim Howells
  I have received one letter form the Archbishop's Council of the Church of England and a number of other letters and e-mails from churches about the effects of the Licensing Bill on their provision of live music which is not associated with religious worship.

  Lottery Funding (Cumbria)
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much lottery funding has been received in the last three years in(a) the Workington constituency and (b) Cumbria; and what the average amount of lottery money received in each constituency was in that period. [86918]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, the Workington constituency has been awarded 5,042,599 and Cumbria has been awarded 42,150,64 in Lottery funding between 11\12\99 and 10\1202. The average amount awarded to each UK constituency over the same period has been £5,362,359.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate has been made of the cost of proposed refurbishment and redecorative work at Clarence House; and how much of this is to be charged to Grant-in-Aid. [83907]

  Dr. Howells
  The estimated cost of the proposed refurbishment and redecorative work is £3.45 million (excluding VAT). In addition, £175,000 has been budgeted for removing, storing and reinstating the contents of the house and £356,000 for professional fees (also excluding VAT). All the above costs will be met from the current Grant-in-Aid allocation.

  The Prince of Wales will personally fund costs relating to the furnishing of Clarence House.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what changes are planned in the use of accommodation at(a) St. James's Palace and (b) Clarence House. [83908]

  Dr. Howells
  From August 2003, Clarence House will become the official residence for The Prince of Wales and the London home for Prince William and Prince Harry. Clarence House will also house the Private Office of The Prince of Wales. The main parts of Clarence House will be opened to the public in the summer months. The office space in St. James's Palace, vacated as a result of the move of the Private Office of The Prince of Wales, will be occupied by the Royal Collection. The future of the apartment in St. James's Palace currently occupied by The Prince of Wales is under review.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what accommodation there is at(a) St. James's Palace and (b) Clarence House. [83909]

  Dr. Howells
  At St. James's Palace, there is the following accommodation: state rooms, two chapels (Chapel Royal and The Queen's Chapel), office accommodation and 22 apartments (occupied by Members of the Royal Family, staff, or currently vacant, with two currently let to the Ministry of Defence). In addition, there is a picture restoration studio, guardroom and messing facility for the guard.

  Clarence House comprises 16 main rooms plus office, staff and ancillary accommodation. Following refurbishment of Clarence House, this accommodation will be used by The Prince of Wales (a) to perform his official duties, which include meetings, receptions and other events; (b) as his official London residence; and (c) as offices for 30 of his official staff, as well as by the Princes as their London home.

  School Sports
  Mr. Viggers (Gosport)
  What recent efforts her Department has made to promote sport in schools. [85589]

  Mr. Caborn
  The amount of £459 million is being invested by DCMS and DfES to transform physical education, school sport and club links over the next three years. The funding will help deliver a joint DfES\DCMS Public Service Agreement target to increase the 532W
  percentage of children who spend at least two hours a week on high quality PE and school sport—in and beyond school—to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  Sport (National Lottery Funding)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department and its predecessors has spent at 2002 prices through(a) Grant-in-Aid funding and (b) National Lottery funding on (i) sport funding bodies, (ii) elite sport support, (iii) local sport initiatives and (iv) others in each year since 1992; and if she will make a statement. [86375]

  Dr. Howells
  The data required are not readily available, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport will write to the hon. Member with detailed information as soon as possible.

  Television Production (Regions)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to expand television programme production in the regions. [86566]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's policy is to retain and strengthen the regional dimension to public service broadcasting to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of different communities and cultural interests. The Communications Bill contains detailed provisions designed to achieve this.

  Under the Bill, Channel 3 companies will have targets for programmes produced in the regions for the regions, programmes made regionally for national audiences and investment in programme production in the regions. Channel 4 will have targets for programme production and investment in the regions. Obligations in this area will also be applied to the BBC, through the agreement with the Secretary of State.

  In addition, the ITC UK programme supply review was published on 26 November 2002. The review recommended a number of changes to support regional production. We are currently considering these recommendations and will make any necessary amendments to the Communications Bill.

  Television Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether her policy on the promotion of media literacy includes references to hearing and sight-impaired people having access to television services. [85814]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]Our policy on media literacy, set out in the statement published on October 2001 and developed in the duty to be laid on OFCOM under the Communications Bill, is not focussed specifically on people with sensory impairements. It is to help everyone manage the new media environment more safely. In carrying out this duty, as indeed in their other work, OFCOM must as appropriate have regard to the needs of people with disabilities.
  533W
  Other specific provisions set new, higher targets for subtitling and audio-description and require OFCOM to produce a code promoting the understanding and enjoyment of television services by those with hearing or sight impairment.

  Tourism
  Mr. John Smith
  How many tourists visited British seaside resorts in the last five years. [85577]

  Dr. Howells
  The majority of trips to the British seaside are made by British people. From 1997 to 2001, the UK Tourism Survey recorded 161 million such trips.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Reinstated Clergy
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the rights of clergy who have been reinstated with regard to salary and pension provision. [85606]

  Mr. Bell
  Clergy are not reinstated as such. If they were temporarily suspended or offered leave of absence while in office, payment of stipend and accrual of pensionable service would be linked to whether the clergy concerned continued to hold the Bishop's licence.

  Clergy (Employment Status)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what advice the Church Commissioners have given to the Department of Trade and Industry in its review of the employment status of members of the clergy. [85608]

  Mr. Bell
  The Archbishops' Council has responded on behalf of the Church of England, after consulting bishops. A copy of its response will be made available in the Library.

  Public Events (Cathedrals)
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what advice is given by the Church Commissioners to the deans and chapters of English cathedrals concerning revenues from the use of their premises for public events other than worship; and if he will make a statement. [85607]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church Commissioners do not give advice concerning revenues from the use of cathedral premises for public events in relation to the proposed licensing Bill introduced in another place. It would rest with the cathedrals' representative body, the Association of English Cathedrals, to do so and to make whatever submission they thought appropriate in relation to the proposed Bill.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  Regional Government
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, if he will make a statement on the Commission's policy on the use of public funds in the promotion of referendums on regional government. [85605]

  Mr. Beith
  If a regional referendum is announced, the Commission intends to conduct an information campaign designed to encourage voting in the referendum. The Commission also has the power to designate lead campaigning organisations for and against the referendum question. A designated organisation may receive public funds as well as a postage-free referendum address.

  In the event that designated organisations are not appointed, the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, currently before the House, includes provisions for the Commission itself to provide information to the electorate explaining the arguments for and against the referendum question.

  National Assembly for Wales
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, if the Committee will review the arrangements for the system for election to the National Assembly for Wales. [85609]

  Mr. Beith
  No. Such a review would not fall within the statutory remit of the Speaker's Committee and the Electoral Commission has no current plans to review this area. However, I understand that the recently established Commission on the Powers and Electoral Arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales, chaired by the Noble Lord Richard QC, is looking at this issue.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new nuclear power stations are to be built in the UK in the next 10 years; where they will be built; and how long they will be in service. [86303]

  Mr. Wilson
  In common with all generation options, the initiative for bringing forward proposals to construct new plant lies with the market and the generating companies. British Energy and BNFL have said they have no current plans for such proposals.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many nuclear power stations in operation in the UK will be upgraded; and how many will be decommissioned. [86304]

  Mr. Wilson
  Any modification to a nuclear power station is a matter for the operator subject to the relevant regulatory controls. Latest published company information on expected station closure dates is as follows.
  535W

  Magnox

  Capacity MW

  Published lifetime

  Calder Hall

  194

  2003

  Chapelcross

  196

  2005

  Bradwell

  300

  2002

  Sizewell A

  420

  2006

  Dungeness A

  450

  2006

  Oldbury

  434

  2008

  Wylfa

  980

  2010

  British Energy

  Dungeness B

  1,110

  2008

  Hartlepool

  1,210

  2014

  Heysham 1

  1,150

  2014

  Heysham 2

  1,250

  2023

  Hinkley Point B

  1,220

  2011

  Hunterston B

  1,190

  2011

  Sizewell B

  1,188

  2035

  Torness

  1,250

  2023

  WTO (Sydney)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the objectives of the Government at the WTO mini-ministerial meeting in Sydney on 14 November. [83652]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's objective for the WTO mini-ministerial meeting, which took place in Sydney on 14 and 15 November, was to advance key development issues within the WTO Doha Development Agenda (DDA) including agreement on how WTO members, without sufficient manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector, can make use of compulsory licensing for essential medicines; and agreement on a package of special and differential treatment for developing countries.

  The UK is represented by the European Commission in the WTO.

  Agriculture and Biotechnology
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to re-appoint the Agriculture and Biotechnology Commission when its term finishes. [86570]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]The existing terms of office of the Chair and Members of the AEBC expire at the end of January 2003. The AEBC is a public body and appointments and re-appointments are made under the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies. As part of this process, I am currently consulting with my Cabinet colleagues and with Ministers in the Devolved Administrations.

  Bank Holidays
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to count bank holidays as statutory paid annual leave. [86952]

  Alan Johnson
  There are no current proposals to count bank holidays as statutory paid annual leave.

  Benefit Payments (Disabled People)
  Mr Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice disabled and infirm 536W
  people will get to help to decide what method they should use to help with benefit payments in Post Offices. [86561]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  There will be a range of accounts available for people. The Department will provide customers with information (including letters and leaflets) which clearly sets out the account options as part of the move to Direct Payment. Customers, including those with a disability, will then be able to consider the options available and choose the account that best meets their needs and circumstances. They will be asked to provide details of their chosen account so that the Department can begin to pay their benefit or pensions by Direct Payment.

  Post Office card account customers will also be able to give third party access to a nominated individual who will be able to access their account via a second card and a separate PIN.

  It has always been recognised that there will be some customers who are unable to use any of the banking options or the Post Office card account. For these people we are currently exploring the options available to ensure they receive their benefit at outlets which will include the Post Office.

  BNFL
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation her Department has made of reports produced by the BNFL Stakeholder Dialogue; and what the departmental representation is on the BNFL Stakeholder Dialogue. [86169]

  Mr. Wilson
  The aim of the BNFL Stakeholder Dialogue is to inform BNFL's decision-making process about the improvement of their environmental performance in the context of their overall development. It is therefore up to BNFL, and not my Department, to evaluate the reports that come out of this work, but it is clear that the company greatly value the Dialogue process.

  The Department is a strong supporter of the Dialogue and is represented on several of the working groups, as well as the Main Group that oversees the entire process.

  Digital Marketplace
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the target set in 1998 for achievement by the end of Parliament to increase to 1 million the number of SMEs wired up to the digital market place. [83596]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]1. To ensure that 1.5 million micro, small and medium-sized businesses are 'connected' by 2002. (Competitiveness White Paper implementation plan)

  2. To have one million SMEs trading online by 2002. (Competitiveness White Paper implementation plan)

  The target of ensuring that 1.5 million SMEs are connected was achieved in 2000, as indicated by that year's International Benchmarking Study (IBS). The 2002 IBS, published on 3rd December 2002, has shown

  537W
  a recent drop in the numbers of SMEs going on line, however the target continues to be achieved, with just over 1.5 million SMEs now connected.

  The total level of e-commerce continues to increase as those companies that trade online do see an increasing volumes. Through UK Online for Business, we continue to help SME's make the best use of information in communication technology.

  Doha Trade Round
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she made to the EU Trade Commissioner in advance of the World Trade Organisation's general council meeting about the agreements which need to be made to retain broad support from developing countries for the Doha trade round; and if she will make a statement about progress made to date on the negotiations in this round. [86948]

  Ms Hewitt
  Negotiations are in full flow and technical progress has been made in most areas of the negotiations.

  I am in regular contact with Commissioner Lamy and have spoken to him recently. I stressed, in particular, the importance of reaching an agreement on how WTO members without sufficient manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector can make use of compulsory licensing for essential medicines; and on reaching agreement on special and differential treatment for developing countries. Looking to the future, progress on these issues and on agriculture will have to be made to ensure that development countries continue to support the Doha trade round.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements are made for citizens who have applied to serve as lay members of employment tribunals and have been turned down to be briefed about the reasons for their rejection. [86505]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]Feedback for candidates on their application for these posts is available on request from the consultants organising this recruitment competition, Capita Ras, and has been given to those who have asked for it. It was not automatically offered to candidates because of the large numbers involved—nearly 4,500 candidates applied for some 250 posts. My Department will publish an evaluation report on this exercise in due course, which will include an assessment of feedback arrangements.

  Energy Sector (Government Support)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much(a) direct and (b) indirect Government financial support has been made available to the energy sector in each year since 1990, excluding the nuclear and renewables industries. [82802]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]The table shows how much direct Government financial support has been made available to the energy sector in each year since 1990, excluding the nuclear and renewables industries.
  538W
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him today, PQ No. 82803, for further information on how the figures were assembled.

  £ million

  Direct

  1990–91

  149.6

  1991–92

  465.2

  1992–93

  652.9

  1993–94

  431.7

  1994–95

  211.7

  1995–96

  8.4

  1996–97

  4.9

  1997–98

  4.9

  1998–99

  4.6

  1999–2000

  4.5

  2000–01

  81.3

  2001–02

  66.6

  Note:

  There was no indirect Government financial support.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much(a) direct and (b) indirect Government support has been given to the energy sector in each year since 1990. [82803]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 16 November 2001,Official Report, columns 918–19W and 17 December 2001, Official Report, column 102W. Since those figures were compiled, an error has been corrected in the 1990–91 figure for indirect Government support. In addition, there are minor increases in figures for direct Government support for years 1998–99 to 2000–01 to reflect the Research Council's more detailed investigation of their investments in sustainable energy.

  The following table incorporates these amendments and includes expenditure for 2001–02.

  Total support for the energy sector

  £ million

  Year

  Direct

  Indirect

  1990–91

  292.1

  1,271.1

  1991–92

  579.4

  809.7

  1992–93

  822.0

  892.9

  1993–94

  603.5

  963.1

  1994–95

  379.2

  988.4

  1995–96

  245.2

  793.5

  1996–97

  202.0

  112.8

  1997–98

  220.4

  126.5

  1998–99

  325.1

  127.0

  1999–2000

  234.8

  56.4

  2000–01

  342.1

  64.9

  2001–02

  356.2

  94.0

  Notes:

  1. The figures for direct support include:

  (a) Direct Government funding for research and development on renewable energy through the DTI's Sustainable Energy Programme and through Research Councils via the Science Budget

  (b) Support for the coal industry but excluding the impact of debt-write-offs and proceeds at the privatisation of British Coal and payments made in respect of historic liabilities retained in the public sector, such as health claims

  (c) Support for nuclear based on the funding to the UKAEA details of which were included in the reply to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on 14 November 2001, Official Report, columns 756–57W.

  539W

  (d) Support for oil and gas production through Sustained Hydrocarbons Additional Recovery Programme (SHARP) and predecessor programmes, and development of new products and services and competitiveness improvement within the UK oil and gas supplies sector.

  2. The figures for indirect support include:

  (a) expenditure through the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO), the Scottish Renewables Obligation and the Northern Ireland NFFO funded by the electricity consumer through the Fossil Fuel Levy in Great Britain and the variant arrangements in Northern Ireland.

  (b) The premium received by Nuclear Electric plc over and above the market price for electricity in the period 1990–96 details of which were provided in the reply to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on 14 November 2001, Official Report, columns 756–57W.

  Since 1998 the Government have also worked with the oil and gas industry through the Oil and Gas Industry Task Force, now PILOT, to identify and deliver the measures necessary to ensure continued profitable activity on the UK Continental Shelf.
  The Government are currently providing British Energy with a credit facility of up to £650 million in respect of the period up to 9 March 2003 and has taken security for the loan over the company's assets. The facility has been provided in respect of the company's working capital requirements and cash collateral for trading in the UK and North America. As of 28 November the company has drawn down £382 million of the facility available to them.

  Fuel Poverty
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what analysis she has made of the merits of the programmes run by energy companies with the aim of helping to end fuel poverty. [86982]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has piloted a survey to monitor the impacts of company schemes aimed at tackling fuel poverty. The main objectives of the survey are to assess:

  1. the number of households helped;

  2. to what extent the households have benefited;

  3. the extent to which they are schemes which operate under the energy supplier's mandatory Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC—formerly EESoP); and

  4. whether these schemes are an important contribution to fuel poverty alleviation and whether they harness company creativity.

  The data collected via this survey are currently being finalised, but preliminary analyses suggest that about 1.5 million households have benefited from these schemes. About 0.5 million of these are from schemes that are not EEC (or EESoPs) related. A more complete analysis will be included as part of the Government's UK Fuel Poverty Strategy progress report.

  Horizon System
  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Horizon system will be used for Smart cards to be issued for benefit payment after January 2003. [86560]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd that the Horizon computer system will be used for payment of benefits at the post office counter using plastic bank cards including the plastic card for accessing the card account at the Post Office.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has undertaken into public attitudes towards the UK meeting its Kyoto obligations on renewable energy and the potential change in electricity prices to the consumer; and how the cost of electricity for consumers will affect the Government's policy of promoting renewable energy sources. [85437]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]The Department are carrying out a public attitude survey on renewable energy through the COI and this should be completed in the spring of next year. We also recently undertook a public consultation exercise as part of the preparatory work for the forthcoming Energy White Paper. This examined the public's priorities for energy policy, including the role of renewables and attitudes towards changes in gas and electricity prices. The finding from this exercise are published on the DTI website http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/developep/pub con rep.shtml.

  In addition, DEFRA regularly undertakes surveys of public attitudes to the environment which include questions on people's awareness, concerns and knowledge of climate change.

  Most recently, the full results of the "survey of public attitudes to quality of life and to the environment—2001" were published in October on the DEFRA website www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/pubatt/index.htm.

  The target under the Renewables Obligation of 10 per cent. of electricity being generated from renewable sources by 2010 will make an important contribution towards the UK meeting its Kyoto targets. Achievement of the 10 per cent. target by 2010 would represent an annual saving of 2.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions. Achieving this renewables target is expected to cost an additional 4.4 per cent. on average electricity prices in 2010 over actual 1999 prices.

  Renewable Energy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's role in encouraging the manufacture of renewable energy equipment in the United Kingdom. [85105]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Renewables Obligation, which the Government introduced on 1 April 2002, is being backed by nearly £250 million of direct support measures to bring forward newer renewable energy technologies. In addition, in order to foster innovative research and development activity, the Government have increased provision for the New and Renewable Energy R&D programme to £19 million per year.

  This provides a substantial incentive to renewable energy generation in the UK, and creates a favourable climate too, for the expansion of renewable energy equipment and services.

  In March, the Government set up a new unit, Renewables UK, to maximise the UK's involvement in renewable energy projects in the UK and overseas. Renewables UK aims to encourage the UK renewable

  541W
  energy sector, including equipment manufacturers and service providers, to take advantage of the opportunities created by the Renewables Obligation.

  Renewables UK will be conducting a gap analysis to help define which technologies offer the best prospects for growth in UK manufacturing.

  Royal Mail Group
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much net profit was made by the Royal Mail Group in each year since 1990. [86446]

  Ms Hewitt
  The profit after tax for Royal Mail Group for each year since financial year 1989–90 is set out in the following table.

  Year

  Profit (Loss) after Tax (£ million)

  1989–90

  3

  1990–91

  31

  1991–92

  152

  1992–93

  187

  1993–94

  195

  1994–95

  314

  1995–96

  270

  1996–97

  361

  1997–98

  447

  1998–99

  496

  1999–2000

  (264)

  2000–01

  49

  2001–02

  (940)

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) of 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 518W, on the rural post office network, how much of the £450 million that will be made available for rural post offices from 2003–06 is paid out of funds derived from past profits made by the Royal Mail group and its predecessors. [86501]

  Ms Hewitt
  In line with my statement on 2 December, £450 million of Government money will be made available from £1.8 billion of gilts which Royal Mail group hold on behalf of Government. The gilts represent accumulated past dividends and cash generated by the business.

  Unlike previous Governments we have decided to release these funds for investment, including in the post office network.

  Science arid Engineering Base
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the target set in 1998 for the period 1999–2002, to improve the overall international ranking of the science and engineering base in terms of(a) quality, (b) relevance and (c) cost-effectiveness. [83594]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: The quality of the science and engineering base is currently measured by the UK's world ranking in terms of citations of published papers. Over the period
  542W
  1981–2000 the UK received a 9.1 per cent. share of the citations in the international Science Citation Index which placed the UK second overall to the USA.

  Relevance is measured by the UK's world ranking in terms of the proportion of Higher Education Institute funding from non-governmental sources. For the latest year (1999), the UK's ranking was first among the G7 countries.

  Cost effectiveness is measured by the UK's world ranking in terms of the number of papers published per £1 million of public expenditure on science. In 1990, 1993, 1996 and 2000, the most recent year in which the measurement was made, the UK was the leading country in the G7.

  Sellafield
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration has been given to the request for the Irish Radiological Protection Institute to be given access to the BNFL plant at Sellafield parallel to that already given to the UN International Atomic Agency. [86015]

  Mr. Wilson
  The regulation of activities at the Sellafield site is a matter solely for the relevant competent UK authorities acting under regulatory powers granted to them under relevant UK law. The UK would not afford a right of access to plants at Sellafield to an interested foreign organisation. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has the right to make inspections by approved IAEA safeguards inspectors in accordance with the provisions of the UK's safeguards agreement with the European Atomic Energy Community and the IAEA.

  Telephone Conversations
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) dates and (b) purpose of (i) meetings and (ii) telephone conversations between Ministers in her Department and (A) the chairman and (B) the chief executive of the Royal Mail group or its predecessors since 8 June 2001. [86449]

  Ms Hewitt
  As shareholder of Royal Mail Holdings plc, I have had numerous conversations on the telephone and in person, mainly with the chairman, Allan Leighton, during this period. We discussed a wide range of issues affecting the company, including the company's performance, the renewal plans and the finance package for the company.

  Urban Reinvention
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the list of proposed post office closures, as part of the Urban Reinvention programme, will be announced. [87175]

  Mr. Timms
  Post Office Ltd. do not have a predetermined list of offices which will close under their urban reinvention programme, nor is there any arithmetical formula which will determine the number of closures in any given area.
  543W
  Proposals for closures under the programme will be determined by how many offices are close to each other in the area, the current and projected business volumes and whether individual sub-postmasters have indicated that they want to leave the network. Factors of high importance to customers will also be carefully considered. These include the proximity and convenience of access of other branches, public transport links, facilities for the disabled and the ability of other branches to absorb the work without detriment to service. Before any changes are made, a formal consultation process will be carried out in accordance with the Code of Practice on Post Office Closures, with local communities, interest groups, councillors and MPs. In every instance there will also be extensive consultation with the consumer body, Postwatch.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions her Department has had with the British Wind Energy Association about radar interference and wind farms; [86631]

  (2) what discussions her Department has had with civilian airlines about the impact of wind farms on radar equipment. [86633]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Wind Energy, Defence and Civil Aviation Interest Working Group, which was set up and is chaired by the Department, provides a forum for addressing the effect of wind turbines on defence and civil aviation activities including their impact on radar functioning. The membership of the of the working group covers a wide range of stakeholders including the British Wind Energy Association, the Ministry of Defence, the Civil Aviation Authority and National Air Traffic Services. The latter two organisations have an interest in ensuring that wind farms do not compromise the safety of civil aviation operations including radar functioning.

  In October the working group produced interim guidelines on wind energy and aviation interest which provide guidance to wind farm developers on a range of issuesincluding the location of turbines in the vicinity of radar installations. Copies of the document are being deposited in the Libraries of the House. The guidelines are part of the programme of work outlined in the reply to the answer given to my hon. Friend on 11 December 2002, Official Report, column 329W.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Business Start-Up Strategy
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to implement the new business start up strategy. [86475]

  Mr. Pearson
  A draft Business Birth Rate strategy is being finalised by Invest Northern Ireland and will be issued for public consultation in January 2003. On completion of this consultation process a detailed implementation plan will be put into effect.

  Clean Air
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation with the business sector was undertaken by the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland with regard to the regulatory framework concerning clean air under the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. [87303]

  Angela Smith
  The Department carried out a full consultation exercise with various interested parties, which included Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, Translink, Freight Transport Association, Retail Motor Industry Federation and the Road Haulage Association. The consultation document was also advertised in local newspapers and published on the Departments website. No concerns were raised by the business sector.

  Environment
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what controls there will be on the powers of authorised officers regarding their authority to enter residential premises under the provisions of the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. [87302]

  Angela Smith
  The purpose of Part II of the Order is to minimise or reduce the pollution caused by emissions from industrial installations. The powers of entry provided for by this Part will be exercisable only in respect of such installations. In practice, they are not expected to have any application to residential premises except in the unlikely event that relevant industrial activities are carried out on such premises.

  Part III of the Order deals with local air quality management and makes provision for only authorised persons to enter any premises used for residential purposes. Such persons must be authorised by an enforcing authority, ie, the Department of the Environment or a district council. In addition, entry onto residential premises must be either with the consent of a person who occupies the premises or under the authority of a warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace. These provisions are similar to those in other existing Northern Ireland environmental legislation, and are necessary to fulfil the required functions in Part III of the Order.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what protection will be afforded to owners of property in lands adjacent to areas of special scientific interest under the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. [87304]

  Angela Smith
  The provisions relating to Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs) within the Environment (NI) Order do not impose any restrictions on land which lies adjacent to an existing ASSI. There is therefore no requirement to afford protection to the owners or occupiers of such land.

  Article 43 of the Order will enable the Department to enter into an agreement with the owner or occupier of land which is adjacent to an ASSI in order to conserve or enhance its wildlife interests. Such agreements are entirely voluntary. A similar power already exists in relation to ASSIs in Article 9 of the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands Order (NI) 1985.
  545W
  Article 30 of the Environment Order enables the Department to increase the area of an ASSI. This power will be subject to similar requirements to those applying for new ASSI declarations, including arrangements for representations or objections to be made.

  Giant's Causeway
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications have been received by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board for financial assistance to construct visitor centres at the Giant's Causeway, County Antrim; and whether the Northern Ireland Tourist Board has made a decision on the number of visitor centres it is prepared to support financially at the Giant's Causeway. [86477]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has received one application for financial assistance for the construction of a visitor centre at the Giant's Causeway. The application was received on 2 May 2002 and is currently being processed. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has not made any decision relative to the funding of any visitor centre nor has the board determined the number of visitor centres it is prepared to support.

  Hospital Staff (Employment Records)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether it is normal practice to destroy the employment records of staff employed by a hospital; and whose decision it is to destroy such records. [85750]

  Mr. Browne
  Staff in a hospital are normally employed by the health and social services trust responsible for managing the hospital. My Department has instructed trusts to retain the employment records of staff for not less than six years after the person leaves that employment or reaches the age of 70, whichever is the later.

  Human Organs Inquiry
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost was of the Human Organs Inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the availability to the inquiry of secondary back-up data from 1965 to 1975. [85755]

  Mr. Browne
  The cost of the Human Organs Inquiry was £405,867.This figure includes all costs incurred by the inquiry, including the printing and launch of its report. The inquiry team had access to all available data, but acknowledged in its report the inadequacy of record keeping in the past. At the Royal Victoria hospital there was a record of each post mortem, but other records, which may have shown what happened to organs that had been removed, were incomplete or missing.

  Intergovernmental Councils
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings of(a) the North/South Ministerial Council and (b) the British/Irish Council have taken place in each year since their formation. [86618]
  546W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The numbers of meetings were as follows:

  Institution/Year

  Number

  North/South Ministerial Council

  1999

  1

  2000

  22

  2001

  24

  2002

  18

  British/Irish Council

  1999

  1

  2000

  2

  2001

  1

  2002

  4

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent in each year since their formation on the running costs of the(a) North/South Ministerial Council, (b) British/Irish Council, arid (c) Northern Ireland Civic Forum. [86624]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The running costs to the Northern Ireland Administration were as follows:

  £

  Institution

  Running costs

  North/South Ministerial Council1

  1999–2000

  94,949

  2000–01

  737,162

  2001–02

  787,609

  2002–03

  466,800

  British/Irish Council2

  1999–2000

  6,365

  2000–01

  7,420

  2001–02

  10,158

  2002–03

  17,344

  Northern Ireland Civic Forum3

  2000–01

  145,000

  2001–02

  450,000

  1 Expenditure by the Northern Ireland Administration includes salaries, administration and cost of meetings.

  2 Includes cost of ministerial meetings in Northern Ireland and travel and subsistence costs for ministerial meetings outside Northern Ireland.

  3 Includes cost of salaries, administration, meetings, Members expenses, printing of reports and researchers.

  Invest Northern Ireland
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a decision will be made on a future headquarters for Invest Northern Ireland. [86476]

  Mr. Pearson
  Consideration of this matter is at an advanced stage and it is expected that a final decision will be made in the new year.

  Mallusk Landfill Site
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will honour the commitment made by the former Northern Ireland Minister of the Environment to conduct an environmental assessment into the proposed landfill site at Mallusk. [87272]
  547W
  Angela Smith
  In July 2002, the previous Minister advised that an addendum updating and reviewing the original environmental statement, received in respect of this planning application would be required before a decision would issue. I can confirm that this remains the current position.

  Once received the addendum will be advertised to give the public an opportunity to make representations on the statement as amended.

  Northern Ireland Civic Forum
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on expenses claimed by members of the Northern Ireland Civic Forum in each year since its formation. [86623]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The total expenses claimed by members of the Civic Forum in each financial year since the forum's inception is as follows:

  £

  October 2000 to March 2001

  8,033

  April 2001 to March 2002

  34,825

  April 2002 to October 2002

  13,970

  Orders in Council
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria were applied when assessing which Northern Ireland legislation would be brought forward by means of Order in Council. [86622]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My main concerns are to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged by the suspension of the devolved institutions and that the good work on legislation started by the Executive and the Assembly is not wasted. If the institutions are not restored in the interim, my ministerial colleagues and I will do our utmost to deliver the bulk of the Executive's legislative programme at Westminster in a timeframe as close as possible to that envisaged by the Assembly.

  Planning Aid Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the time scale for the establishment of a planning aid service. [86816]

  Angela Smith
  Planning Aid for Northern Ireland was established by the local branch of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and launched at the Millennium Planning Conference in Belfast on 22 June 2000. It has now been in existence for two and a half years. It is independent of Government.

  Planning Aid for Northern Ireland has approached the Department of the Environment for financial assistance in further developing the role of the service. The Department's Planning Service and RTPI jointly commissioned a feasibility study in September 2002, the
  548W
  purpose of which is to identify funding to develop a best value Planning Aid Service in Northern Ireland. The outcome of the feasibility study is expected in the New Year.

  Planning
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Consultation Paper on Third Party Planning Appeals will be issued; and if he will make a statement. [86815]

  Angela Smith
  I am aware of Dermot Nesbitt's commitment to publish a consultation paper before the end of 2002. However, I am also conscious of the potential implications which the introduction of a third party appeal right has for the operation of Northern Ireland's planning system and economy. I therefore wish to have a regulatory impact assessment carried out. I will wish to give this matter the most careful consideration, before I make a decision how to best deal with this important issue.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Implementation Plan for Modernising Planning Processes will be published; and if he will make a statement. [86814]

  Angela Smith
  While the 2002–03 Programme for Government target for publication of the Implementation Plan was November 2002, prior to suspension of the Assembly, the Planning Service had been awaiting the Environment Committee's response to the Modernising Planning Processes Consultation Paper.

  Suspension occurred before any representation was received from the Environment Committee, however over 160 responses were received to the consultation. These responses have been carefully analysed by Planning Service to inform and assist with the drafting of the Implementation Plan, publication of which is expected shortly.

  Pre-School Funding
  Mr Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what per cent. of under three-year-olds have been eligible for free pre-school education in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years. [82679]

  Jane Kennedy
  Pre-school places in the statutory sector are, as has been the case since the early 1970s, open to children from two years old to the lower limit of compulsory school age. In all cases, however, applications from children in their immediate preschool year are given priority ahead of younger children. Children in their penultimate pre-school year who attend nursery schools and units are therefore occupying places that would otherwise be unfilled.

  In the past three years, the number of children attending statutory nursery schools and units who had not attained the age of three by the date of the School Census was as follows.
  549W

  Number of children under three attending statutory settings

  Number of children under three as percentage of children attending statutory steetings

  Number of children under three as percentage of total number of children attending funded pre-school places

  1999–2000

  1,090

  8.8

  6.9

  2000–01

  992

  7.1

  5.6

  2001–02

  1,423

  11

  7

  Royal Victoria Hospital
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what use is being made of the stock of tissue, organs, samples or slides held by the Royal Victoria hospital pending instructions from relatives. [85756]

  Jane Kennedy
  Human tissue and organs obtained at post-mortem examination and retained by the Royal Victoria Hospital fall into two categories. Material obtained since the year 2000 is being used in accordance with relatives' wishes as expressed in writing at the time of giving consent to the post-mortem examination. All other material is being stored unused, unless relatives have specifically requested that tests, e.g. for cancer genetics, be carried out. This is an interim arrangement until new legislation and associated guidance is put is place.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set up a system of DNA verification to ensure remains from the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, are given to the correct families. [85757]

  Mr. Browne
  DNA testing is a complex, time-consuming and costly procedure. A system for its widespread use on retained organs and tissue at the Royal Victoria Hospital could be justified only if there were a significant problem with the identification of retained material. I am satisfied that no such problem exists.

  School Examinations
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the system to replace the 11 plus examination in Northern Ireland. [79421]

  Jane Kennedy
  No decisions have been taken about new transfer arrangements. In the responses to consultation a range of suggestions were made for future post-primary arrangements and my officials will be discussing these with our education partners and representatives of parents over the coming weeks. My aim is to develop a modern and fair education system which addresses the weaknesses of our current arrangements and enables all children to fulfil their potential.

  Warm Homes Plus Scheme
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when people qualifying for conversion 550W
  of their home heating systems from solid fuel to oil or gas under the Warm Homes Plus scheme will have their work carried out. [86817]

  Mr. Browne
  The temporary partial suspension of the Warm Homes Plus scheme was introduced in the early summer following a technical report that called into question the safety of converting, to oil or gas, heating systems that use high output solid fuel back boilers or room heaters. Such appliances have been found in about half of all properties eligible for new heating systems under the scheme. Installation or conversion of heating systems in other properties is continuing as before. My prime concern is for the well-being of people who have works carried out under the Warm Homes Plus scheme, and I am aiming for the shortest possible interruption of the scheme that is consistent with their safety.

WALES

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many engagements were undertaken outside London(a) by him or his predecessor and (b) by Ministers in his Department in January (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002; [87345]

  (2) to which bodies his Department makes appointments; how many members there are (a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) business men, (ii) business men in SMEs and (iii) business men in micro-businesses. [87400]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office.

  Sustainability Strategy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the sustainability strategy is for his Department; and if he will make a statement on how it has changed since the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. [83506]

  Peter Hain
  My Department is small with no executive functions and, therefore, is limited in the contribution it can make to the UK's sustainable development strategy. It has no independent sustainability strategy of its own but in line with the Government's strategy, carries out its functions with the aim of integrating economic, environmental and social policies to ensure a better quality of life for everyone, now and for future generations. This means achieving four objectives simultaneously:Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment;
  Effective protection of the environment;
  Prudent use of natural resources; and
  Social progress that meets the needs of everyone.
  The outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and first views on follow-up, will be reflected in the annual report on UK progress on sustainable development for 2002.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Andrew Smith
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his Answers of 5 December 2002, Official Report, columns 954–5W and 962W what discussions his Department had with Andrew Smith; when and where these took place; who attended each meeting; and what telephone discussions officials have had with Mr. Smith. [87233]

  Mr. Rammell
  In addition to the meeting referred to in my previous answer (UIN 82998 and UIN 83034 of 5 December 2002), Andrew Smith has had minimal contact with the British High Commission in Sierra Leone, regarding Sierra National Airlines (SNA). Mr. Smith is a Director of West Africa Airways which, until October 2002, held the contract for managing the services of SNA. He has telephoned the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on a few occasions. These discussions were held in confidence. British officials did not at any time encourage, support or promote Mr. Smith's activities in Zimbabwe and the DRC.

  I am withholding details of who was present at these meetings, and further details of what was discussed, including in telephone calls under exemption 1b of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Information which would harm the conduct of international relations or affairs) and exemption 14b (information the disclosure of which without the consent of the supplier would prejudice the future supply of such information).

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what end-use monitoring agreements relating to the export of military products have been signed in the last five years with(a) Angola, (b) Cameroon, (c) Eritrea, (d) Ethiopia, (e) Ghana, (f) Kenya, (g) Mozambique, (h) Sierra Leone, (i) Sudan, (j) Tanzania, (k) Uganda, (l) Zambia, (m) Bolivia, (n) Guyana and (o) Republic of Yemen; and what end-use monitoring mechanisms exist in each case. [86313]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have signed no end-use monitoring agreements with these countries. If any end-use monitoring arrangements or assurances are exceptionally put in place with a country, they do not take the form of a signed agreement.

  Global Crossing
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his Answer of 25th November, Official Report, column 80W, on Global Crossing, if he will place the implementation timetable in the Library; how many times there have been circuit interruptions each month since the service level agreements have been in place; and if he will make a statement. [86847]

  Mr. Rammell
  The formal implementation timetable forms part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Telecommunications Network (FTN) contract with Global Crossing. I am therefore withholding 552W
  information about it under Exemption 13 of The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Third Party's commercial confidences).

  There have been some interruptions to FTN service, as is to be expected from a world-wide network connecting the FCO with 155 of its overseas missions. But the overall performance has been good, and has served the FCO well. Where the responsibility for bringing the network back into operational use has rested with Global Crossing, the SLA requirements have been met. Global Crossing have performed according to contract.

  Hawk Jets
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received from the UN, regarding the supply of Hawk jet spare parts to the Democratic Republic of Congo; and what conclusions have been reached as a result. [87238]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have seen no reports from the UN on this matter. We are still in discussion with the UN about the allegations in the UN panel report on exploitation of resources in the DRC. The Security Council is considering the extension of the panel's mandate to allow discussion to continue.

  Mr. John Bredenkamp
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answers of 18 November,Official Report,columns 9–10W, where the two meetings between Mr. John Bredenkamp and British High Commission officials in Zimbabwe took place; when the meetings took place; who was present at each of these meetings; who spoke to Mr. Bredenkamp in each of his two telephone calls; and what items were addressed in (a) the two meetings and (b) the two telephone conservations between Mr. Bredenkamp and officials. [82515]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]The two meetings between British High Commission officials and Mr John Bredenkamp took place in the High Commission in Harare. The meetings were held on 14 November 2001 and 11 March 2002 respectively, and both at Mr Bredenkamp's request. The discussions were held in confidence, and covered a range of issues. During them, British officials neither encouraged, nor expressed support for, Mr Bredenkamp's business activities.

  I am withholding details of who was present at these meetings, and further details of what was discussed, including in the telephone conversations, under exemption 1b of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Information which would harm the conduct of international relations or affairs) and exemption 14b (information the disclosure of which without the consent of the supplier would prejudice the future supply of such information).

  Oil Revenues
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total volume is of unspent oil revenues in the escrow account of the UN oil-for-food programme. [87077]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As of 11 December US$3.3 billion of 'Oil For Food' revenue remained unallocated by Iraq in the UN escrow account.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the oil revenues allocated for(a) Iraq and (b) Iraqi Kurdistan are allocated to (i) the UN Compensation Fund and (ii) UN administrative expenses. [87079]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Revenues from the sale of Iraqi oil under the Oil For Food (OFF) programme are deposited in a UN escrow account. 59% of this revenue is allocated to the UN humanitarian programme in Baghdad-controlled Iraq, and 13% to the programme in northern Iraq. The UN Compensation Fund receives 25% to meet claims arising from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and 3% is allocated to the UN administration of the OFF programme.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions the Government is taking to enable the unspent oil revenues allocated for Iraqi Kurdistan in the escrow account of the UN oil-for food programme to be disbursed; and when she last discussed the volume of unspent oil revenues in the UN oil-for food escrow account allocated with representatives of the Office for Iraq Programme. [87080]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Officials continue to press the Office of the Iraq Programme (OIP) to ensure that the revenues in the UN escrow account allocated to the UN humanitarian programme in northern Iraq are used in full. They also discuss these issues regularly with Kurdish representatives.

  September 11 Terrorist Attacks (Mr. Sheikh)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a response from the Pakistan Government for his request for information on the detention of Mr. Sheikh; and if it provides evidence of a link between Mr. Sheikh and the September 11 attacks. [86585]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]Since our request for information, we have discussed the case with the Pakistani authorities, made clear our opposition to the death penalty and requested access to Omar Sheikh and confirmation of his nationality status. We understand that Omar Sheikh is currently appealing against his conviction for his involvement in the abduction and murder of Daniel Pearl, for which he has been sentenced to death. As the legal process is ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment on possible linkages to other terrorist crimes.

  Visas
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds a visa was issued to Mr. C. Pasipamire of Zimbabwe; whether 554W
  Mr. Pasipamire is subject to EU sanctions; and if he will make a statement on Mr. Pasipamire's presence in the United Kingdom. [87098]

  Mr. Straw
  The British High Commission in Harare issued a visitor's visa to Mr C. Pasipamire. His application was assessed in accordance with the UK Immigration Rules. He satisfied the relevant criteria and he is not subject to EU sanctions. His stay in the UK will be governed by the terms of his visa.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of plans to create a national army in Afghanistan. [87070]

  Clare Short
  President Karzai issued a decree on 1 December 2002, setting out a plan for establishing a national army. A copy is being placed in the Libraries. We welcome the announcement as an integral part of the wider reform and reconstruction process. A professional multi ethnic military force and defence institutions accountable to appropriate civilian control and oversight will be developed, with the support of the US as lead nation, for the coordination of assistance to the Afghan national army. Detailed implementation plans will now be prepared, with support from UNAMA and donor countries. The UK has already pledged to contribute £10 million from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool to the interim payment of army salaries for the newly trained force, provided the Afghan Government fulfils certain transparency and accountability criteria that the UK has set as a precondition for these payments.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Government of Afghanistan on recent fighting between warlords. [87071]

  Clare Short
  There continues to be low level inter-factional fighting in Afghanistan. This underlines the need to provide assistance to the Afghan Administration in the building of appropriate defence and security forces that are able to improve security for the Afghan people and maintain Afghanistan's territorial integrity. The recent presidential decree on the Armed Forces and disarmament demobilisation and reintegration programme should initiate that process and facilitate the extension of the central government's authority to the regions.

  Agriculture (Developing Countries)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on supporting agriculture in developing countries. [87089]

  Clare Short
  My Department recently published an Issues paper on agriculture: "Better Livelihoods for Poor People: The role of Agriculture", which sets out the Department's policy on supporting agriculture in developing countries. I launched this paper at a side event to the recent World Summit on Sustainable
  555W
  Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg. I have arranged for copies of the paper to be placed in the House of Commons Library. The paper is also available on the Department's website: www.dfid.gov.uk under Publications, Environment, Natural Resources and Land Tenure.

  Corruption
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the transparency initiative on cooperation on anti-corruption in developing countries announced at the WSSD was introduced; which countries have signed up to the initiative; which companies are formal partners to the initiative; and if she will make a statement on the results of the initiative. [87064]

  Clare Short
  The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative was announced by the Prime Minister at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September 2002.

  At that time, Norway, Italy, Indonesia and the Central African Republic committed to developing a framework to promote transparency. Now, the G8, plus Australia, Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, Algeria, Equatorial Guinea, Senegal and Botswana are interested and keen to engage on the substance of the initiative. We are following up with key producer countries, such as Angola, Sudan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Brazil and Venezuela. Discussions are taking place with NEPAD leaders.

  Extractive companies backing the initiative in Johannesburg include: BP, Shell, Rio Tinto, BMP Billiton and Anglo-American, with others (TotalFinaElf, Talisman and Statoil) expressing interest in getting involved.

  Momentum is growing behind the initiative. We are building awareness of the issues and exploring options for achieving transparency. The UK will host an international conference (involving Ministers, senior officials, industry and NGO leaders) to take the initiative forward in the run up to the G8 summit, in April 2003, at which more stakeholders will formally become partners in the initiative.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department intends to host the international meeting involving all existing and prospective partners to the transparency initiative on anticorruption in developing countries; where this meeting will take place; and at what cost. [87065]

  Clare Short
  The international conference (involving ministers, senior officials, international institutions, industry and NGO leaders) to build international consensus for action and, we hope, agree on a preferred mechanism to achieve transparency of payments and revenues in the extractive sector will take place in late April 2003. The conference will be hosted in London; details of the date and location will be available early in the New Year.

  This will be preceded by an international multi-stakeholder workshop on 11 and 12 February 2003 to explore the best mechanisms for achieving transparency of payments and to help build the international
  556W
  coalition. This meeting will take place in London, at the Thistle Victoria Hotel. Invitations to this meeting will be issued before the start of the New Year.

  The budget for the international workshop is £40,000, covering the venue, facilitation, catering and travel costs for participants from developing countries.

  Developing Countries (Privatisation)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what monitoring her Department is undertaking of the impact of the privatisation of basic services in developing countries on the accessibility of these services to the poorest people. [87138]

  Clare Short
  Public private partnerships for the delivery of basic services offer important opportunities for improving the accessibility and quality of services, and for reducing costs, for poor people. However, these benefits are not automatically secured. Our country programme staff are involved—often in the context of their policy dialogue on poverty reduction strategies—in specific cases. We provide technical assistance to make sure that poverty reduction is achieved, including through the PPIAF (Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility).

  East Timor
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on(a) the state of alert declared in East Timor and (b) the progress East Timor has made since independence. [87090]

  Clare Short
  The Government of East Timor and donor partners met in Dili on 9 and 10 December to review the progress the new nation has made since independence. All parties agreed that economic and budgetary management by the Government had been excellent. Oil and gas revenues from the Timor Gap remain promising and offer the prospect of longer term economic security.

  However East Timor suffers from acute shortages of qualified and experienced personnel and this has meant that essential social services have not been delivered to many communities in rural areas. The Government and the international community are working to secure the necessary expertise in order to redress the situation.

  The riot in Dili on 4 December appears to have been sparked by heavy handed policing, but was exacerbated by frustration at the slow pace of development. This is directly linked to the difficulties the Government is having in delivering essential services.

  The riot was brought under control in a matter of hours. The events have emphasised to the Government of East Timor the need to work harder to deliver benefits equitably to the people of East Timor, and the need for continued training and development of the police service. Two Commissions have been established, one by Parliament and the second an independent Commission initiated by the Prime Minister, to investigate the causes of the riot, and the response of the police. These are expected to report in a matter of days.

  Education
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to enable quicker implementation of the World bank's initiative to fast-track new donor funds for countries demonstrating progress in improving education. [87139]

  Clare Short
  Improving education outcomes for poor people is not primarily about donor resources. Our approach to the Fast Track Initiative is to help partner Governments put the policies and plans in place that will enable them to accelerate the achievement of universal primary education. It is important that these plans take into account the circumstances and needs of the individual country. Seven countries have prepared proposals but these need to be rigorously reviewed by local donor groups, to ensure that they are coherent with each country's existing plans (including poverty reduction strategies and medium-term economic frameworks or their equivalent), and to confirm that countries have the capacity to absorb any additional finance.

  Ethiopia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the impact which population growth is having on the ability of Ethiopia to reach the United Nations' millennium development goals. [87174]

  Clare Short
  Ethiopia's population of 67 million is growing at 2.7 per cent. per annum. Rapid population growth makes it harder to achieve the millennium development goals; when households have many children, investment in education or health per child tends to be lower, especially for poor people.

  Population pressure on natural resources in some parts of Ethiopia is leading to environmental degradation, undermining the livelihoods of rural people. The objective of the Government of Ethiopia's national population policy is to maintain balance between the size of the population and the country's resource base. Through activities in the health sector and on female education the aim of the policy is to reduce fertility rates, increase rates of contraceptive prevalence and reduce maternal, infant and child morbidity and mortality rates.

  Family Planning
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department is doing to give women in developing countries better access to family planning and sexual health services. [87087]

  Clare Short
  The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) goal of universal access to reproductive health (through the primary health care system) is central to attainment of the health MDGs. The UK remains firmly committed to achievement of the ICPD Programme of Action and to the principles and rights it stands for. It is as relevant today as it was in 1994.

  In 2001/02, DFID invested over £220 million bilaterally in sexual and reproductive health (including HIV/AIDS). We also made significant contributions to
  558W
  multilateral agencies covering sexual and reproductive health including, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), World Health Organisation (WHO), World Bank and the European Community (EC).

  Famine (Africa)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the size of the land plots allocated to families in(a) Ethiopia, (b) Malawi and (c) Burundi. [87075]

  Clare Short
  Ethiopia underwent a major land redistribution campaign in 1975. Land was then taken into state ownership and limited rights of access were given to peasants who farmed it. Since then, increasing population has decreased the size of the individual farm holdings. DFID-funded research that was carried out in 2002 found that the average plot size was 1.41 Ha per household. In a recent comparative study of five African countries (funded by USAID) the equivalent figure quoted for Malawi was 0.99 Ha per household (National Economic Council, Malawi, 2000).

  We do not have a recent assessment of the average plot size for Burundi. However, caution should be used about drawing any direct links between plot size and production.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the causes of the famine in(a) Southern Africa and (b) Ethiopia. [87076]

  Clare Short
  The problem in southern Africa is one of declining access to food. Poor people are becoming more and more vulnerable to food shortage, a s successive harvest failures have eroded their savings and other assets and hence their ability to cope. HIV/AIDS and other disease burdens are compounding this problem. Inappropriate policies, serious governmance failures and a shortage of foreign exchange have contributed to a failure to come to grips with the poverty which lies at the root of this vulnerability. There have also been poor information flows and planning in relation to the short-term response to the humanitarian crisis.

  The problem of vulnerability is also extreme in Ethiopia—one of the poorest countries in the world ranking 168 out of 173 on the Human Development Index. Vast numbers of households lack the savings or other assets to cope with even minor shocks, let alone the significant reduction in harvest caused by rain failure in 2002. Government has rural development policies in place but capacity constraints are limiting impact. The systems for short-term response to humanitarian crises are relatively well-developed and function adequately.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what role the early warning systems played in her Department's response to the famine in Ethiopia. [87085]
  559W
  Clare Short
  The early warning system (EWS) in Ethiopia is a combined Government of Ethiopia, UN and NGO initiative. This EWS is well developed and has played an important role in forecasting the likely humanitarian developments. We pay close attention to the information being provided from all sources to help ensure we respond in good time to help address the most urgent needs.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid her Department is giving to(a) Eritrea and (b) Sudan to cope with their famine. [87086]

  Clare Short
  We have given £1.35 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 2002 Appeal for(a) Eritrea, and stand ready to provide more support in response to need. Officials from my Department plan to visit Eritrea early in the new year. Support this year to (b) Sudan to address basic humanitarian needs, including those as a result of food shortages, consists of £2 million to the ICRC and a further £5 million through international non-government organisations and other agencies.

  Focus Group Research
  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what use she and her Department has made of focus group research since June 2001; if he will identify for each research project the topics covered, the person or organisation carrying out the research, and the total cost; and if she will publish the research on her Department's website. [74997]

  Clare Short
  DFID has not made any direct use of focus group research since 2001. However within our work to raise awareness and understanding of development issues, we have funded a project with the BBC, which involved use of focus groups in the UK to analyse public understanding of international news stories. The results of this research havebeen published and widely disseminated. The work was carried out by Opinion Leader Research at a cost of £38,247.

  Also we do make frequent use of participatory poverty assessments (PPAs) in developing countries, a methodology which has challenged both traditional modes of poverty analysis and subsequent policy development. When implemented well PPAs allow policy makers a better understanding of how and why poverty occurs in particular contexts and the coping mechanisms adopted by the poor. Furthermore, PPAs provide a forum for the poor to voice their own demands for change in public service provision by reflecting on their own experiences in dealing with government services, their perspectives on the specific constraints they experience in trying to access services, and of the quality and relevance of those services.

  Health Care and Education Spending
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to increase the proportion of UK overseas aid spent on basic health care and education. [87137]
  560W
  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Laurence Robertson) on 4 November 2002,Official Report, column 36W.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the(a) total volume and (b) proportion was of EU aid spent on HIV/AIDS in each of the last five years, in pounds sterling, broken down by region. [87068]

  Clare Short
  An average of £36.4 million per year has been spent by the EC on HIV/AIDS support in each of the last five years. This works out as less than 1 per cent. of the total EC development budget.

  Figures are not readily available for individual member states of the EU other than the UK. For the UK, bilateral expenditure on HIV/AIDS related work in developing countries is shown in the table.

  UK expenditure on HIV/AIDS related work as a percentage of total bilateral aid expenditure (£ million)

  Financial year

  HIV/AIDS spend

  Percentage of bilateral aid total

  1997–98

  38

  4

  1998–99

  45

  4

  1999–2000

  75

  6

  2000–01

  125

  9

  2001–02

  200

  13

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department is doing to help(a) children in developing countries orphaned due to AIDS and (b) child-run households as a result of AIDS. [87084]

  Clare Short
  Today, more than 14 million children under 15 years of age have lost one or both parents to AIDS; 11 million of them in sub-Saharan Africa. The implications are enormous—these children will grow up without parental supervision, support or care, many without an education, and alienated from society. Many will become vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and discrimination. Families, communities and NGOs are struggling to provide support.

  Working at the national level, we aim to ensure that orphaned and vulnerable children's issues are at the centre of national policies and budget planning, allocation and expenditure. In Zambia we are supporting UNICEF on a nationally co-ordinated community response aiming to protect children's rights, increase their access to social services (including health and education and psychosocial support) and combating stigma. We recognise that much more needs to be done to tackle this crisis and will continue to work at the regional and international level to support greater awareness and response to the escalating situation.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the effect HIV/AIDS in developing countries will have on meeting the millennium development goals. [87069]
  561W
  Clare Short
  HIV/AIDS is already having a catastrophic impact on sub-Saharan Africa and in other parts of the world prevalence is expanding rapidly. The epidemic will have a serious effect on the millennium development goals:

  On the poverty goal: household expenditure rises as more is spent on health care and funerals-just as incomes are falling.

  On the education goal: HIV threatens teacher supply and can reduce primary enrolment (especially of girls to help with domestic tasks and care of family members).

  On poverty and food security: HIV threatens agricultural productivity, can reduce household food consumption by 15–30 per cent., and could kill a quarter of the agricultural work force in worst-affected countries by 2020.

  On child and maternal health: HIV is increasing mortality directly through infection, and indirectly through lack of adult carers; overburdened health systems are reducing access to health care.

  DFID's response to date has seen an increase in HIV/AIDS related expenditure from £38 million in 1997–98 to over £200 million in 2000–02. We are supporting work to strengthen health systems and to develop comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention, care and mitigation programmes. We are also supporting the development and implementation of national strategies to combat the epidemic. DFID's support is part of a collective international response and includes significant support to the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM).

  Iraq
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is being done to facilitate better communication between the military and aid agencies in advance of potential conflict with Iraq. [87083]

  Clare Short
  My Department has since 1997 had an increasingly close relationship with the Ministry of Defence and consults regularly with the Ministry on a range of issues at official and ministerial level.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met representatives of the UNHCR to discuss preparations for delivering aid to Iraqi refugees in the event of conflict in the region; and when she next expects to do so. [87081]

  Clare Short
  My Department supports UNHCR in its task of responding to humanitarian emergencies around the world, and as a part of that support, holds regular discussions with UNHCR on a range of issues.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with(a) Jordan, (b) Syria, (c) Turkey, (d) Iran, (e) Kuwait and (f) Saudi Arabia regarding their policy towards accepting refugees from Iraq. [87082]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Ministerial Meetings (Irish Government)
  Matthew Taylor
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development, when Ministers in her Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 June 2000; when and where each meeting took place; which Ministers were involved in each meeting; which Irish Government Department were involved in each meeting; and which Ministers and officials from the Irish Government attended each meeting. [63088]

  Clare Short
  Hilary Benn MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, attended the development policy forum in Belfast on 6 February 2002. He met Ms. Carmel Hanna MLA, Ministers for Employment and Learning and Chair of the All-Party Group on International Development, in the Northern Ireland Assembly. David Ford, Secretary of the Group, John Dallat MLA and The Lord Mayor of Belfast, Councillor Jim Ireland were also present.

  I have also met with the development Minister on a number of occasions in the margins of international meetings.

  Ivory Coast
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the fighting in the Ivory Coast, and in particular, the impact it has had on the refugee situation. [87091]

  Clare Short
  We are concerned at the continuing conflict in Cote d'lvoire and continue to work with others in the international community to support regional efforts to broker a viable peace agreement. Although precise figures are difficult to determine, large numbers of people, particularly among immigrant communities, but also Ivorian citizens and refugees, have been displaced due to the fighting. Most have found shelter in host communities or are in temporary camps. Several thousand migrant workers have returned to their countries of origin or crossed into neighbouring countries. At present, the west of the country seems worst affected due to on-going fighting between Government forces and new rebel groups, and the presence of large numbers of refugees from Liberia and Sierra Leone, many of whom have been displaced. According to UN reports, prior to the crisis, there were a total of 72,000 refugees living in Cote d'lvoire.

  Although the situation is not currently a humanitarian crisis, there are real needs and the situation could deteriorate quickly. We are in touch with various agencies operating in Cote d'lvoire and are considering what assistance we should provide.

  Landmines (Angola)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the landmine problems in Angola; and how much money her Department has given to de-mining programmes' in Angola. [87072]

  Clare Short
  My Department's Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department (CHAD) carried out an assessment mission to Angola in July to determine the extent of the humanitarian crisis there. They found that
  563W
  according to mine clearance agencies, the number of mines in Angola is now considerably lower than the previously estimated 13 million. Nevertheless, Angola remains one of the most heavily mined countries in the world. Earlier this month, the national coordinator of Angola's Inter-sectoral Commission for De-mining and Humanitarian Assistance (CNIDAH) estimated that Angola has about four to five million unexploded landmines. As many as 70,000 Angolans are believed to have lost limbs as a result of landmine explosions. Relief agencies in Angola also state that landmines continue to restrict the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

  My Department has allocated US$ 459,000 to UNDP for a project aimed at improving the effectiveness of mine action through strengthened coordination and planning at the provincial level in Angola. We will also be contributing 19.7 percent. of the €6 million which the EC has recently made available for mine action in Angola. This includes €5 million for a variety of mine clearance agencies.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what information displaced people of Angola are receiving to raise awareness of the problem of landmines. [87073]

  Clare Short
  UNICEF has a substantial programme of Mine Risk Education (MRE) in Angola. In the informal sector, UNICEF is providing support in terms of capacity building and financial subsidies to a network of six national NGOs conducting MRE in seven of the most mine-contaminated provinces in Angola: Moxico, Uige, Kuando Kubango, Bie, Huambo. Malanje and Huila. The MRE sessions have served resident, internally displaced populations (IDPs) and returning refugees alike, using drama, presentation, puppets and other ways of transmitting the message to the target groups. In 2002, UNICEF supported activities working within the informal sector reached over 230,000 beneficiaries.

  In addition, UNICEF, in conjunction with the National Institute for the Removal of Explosive Articles and Ordnance (INAROEE) and national and international MRE partners, has produced a total of 616 MRE radio programmes. These have been transmitted in Portuguese and national languages; including Kimbundo, Umbundo and Chokwe.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial aid the Government plans to give the Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia in the next financial year. [86954]

  Clare Short
  The EC's planned expenditure for the Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia for the 2003 calendar year is euros 38.5 million of which the DFID share will be euros 7.3 million or £4.7 million. In addition we have earmarked £2 million for bilateral technical assistance to the Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia for the 2003–04 financial year.

  Marie Stopes International
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is towards providing funds to Marie Stopes International; and if she will make a statement. [86895]
  564W
  Clare Short
  My Department's funding policy to any non-profit making organisation or network, including Marie Stopes International, is based on their ability to effectively contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals; and to my Department's overall objective which is the eradication of poverty.

  National Democratic Institute
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the financial accountability of the money given by her Department to the National Democratic Institute in the USA. [87097]

  Clare Short
  When the National Democratic Institute are working for DFID their accounts are open to DFID scrutiny and DFID itself operates within a financial and accounting control framework designed to comply with the requirements of Government Accounting. Adherence to procedures, and their effectiveness, is scrutinised internally by DFID's internal audit department. Regular external scrutiny is assured through the oversight of the Department's expenditure by the National Audit Office, whose reports are scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee and placed before Parliament.

  Overseas Aid
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the OECD's figures on the proportion of UK overseas aid spent on(a) basic health care and (b) basic education; and if she will make a statement. [87009]

  Clare Short
  The OECD-DAC data are drawn directly from the figures which the UK reports to the organisation each year. They are compiled on the basis of the international definitions agreed by all donors. The figures are often used to compare donor performance, but can be misleading if used out of context. For our own use, DFID has developed a more sophisticated commitment and reporting system that is better able to reflect the full extent of our commitments.

  OECD figures classify all expenditure according only to the primary sector intervention targets. As we move towards greater emphasis on crosscutting and multi-purpose interventions, the figures will represent an increasingly partial picture. Specifically excluded from the UK figures are:
  elements of budget support that are targeting health or education;
  block funding to NGOs;
  emergency assistance; and
  basic education or basic health expenditure of any programme whose primary sector was not basic health or basic education.
  Education or health expenditure is often presented as a proportion of the total bilateral programme, but it would be more appropriate to present it as a proportion of the allocated bilateral aid.

  In common with other donors, the sector statistics exclude any resources given to multilateral agencies, which frequently target the basic health or education sectors. It is also important to note that DAC basic health sector definition excludes family planning.
  565W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 15 July,Official Report, column 42W, on overseas aid, what plans she has to increase the percentage of UK bilateral assistance spent on low income countries. [72437]

  Clare Short
  As part of the 2002 Spending Review, my Department has set itself a Public Service Agreement target for increasing the proportion of DFID's bilateral programme going to low-income countries to 90 per cent. over the 2003–06 period.

  Full details of my Department's progress towards this target thus far can be found on DFID's website (www.dfid.gov.uk) or in the 2002 Departmental Report, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Peru
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the amount is of the grant entitled "Improving the Health of the Poor: A Human Rights Focus", that her Department plans to make to Peru; if the grant will be used for the provision of population control and abortion; what her response is to the request from the Peruvian Health Minister that the grant should be made through the Peruvian Department of Health; and what account her Department takes of national legislation prohibiting abortion when making overseas aid grants. [87025]

  Clare Short
  The proposed health project in Peru "Improving the Health of the Poor: A Rights-Based Approach" is budgeted at £7.5 million, over five years. The project would support the work of the Ministry of Health, the Ombudsman's office and civil society and has a number of components, one of which relates to reproductive health.

  The reproductive health component would include support for poor people's rights to access family planning services, education and, if appropriate, post abortion care but not abortion.

  We have received no formal request that the entire grant be made through the Peruvian Ministry of Health.

  £000

  Organisation

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Marie Stopes International

  3,103

  4,235

  4,945

  5,132

  2,554

  International Planned Parenthood Federation

  5,850

  5,500

  5,500

  5,500

  4,500

  United Nations Population Fund

  11,500

  13,120

  15,000

  40,050

  24,213

  DFID has not provided financial support for British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Pregnancy Advisory Service or to Family Planning Association (UK).

  Sanitation
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what additional work her Department has undertaken to improve sanitation
  566W
  My Department only considers support for activities to improve the quality, safety and accessibility of abortion services where this is legal in the country concerned, and where it is available as a matter of uncoerced individual choice. In all situations, DFID will consider support for measures to improve access to effective and high quality post-abortion care to deal with the complication of spontaneous or induced abortion.

  I discussed the project with the President of Peru during his recent visit to London and he was strongly supportive.

  Reproductive Health Services
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much she gave in each of the last five years to(a) Marie Stopes International, (b) International Planned Parenthood Federation, (c) British Pregnancy Advisory Service, (d) Pregnancy Advisory Service, (e) United Nations Population Fund and (f) Family Planning Association (UK) for the purposes of (i) abortion, (ii) family planning and (iii) other reproductive health services; and what the total grant was that she gave to each organisation in each of the last five years. [86894]

  Clare Short
  Data is not held centrally in the format requested and to collate it would incur disproportionate costs. However, my Department supports a number of international sexual and reproductive health organisations that share our aim of eliminating poverty, including United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). All DFID funding in these areas is in support of the International Conference on Population and Development goal of universal access to reproductive health and is central to attainment of the millennium development goals (MDGs) specifically those related to maternal mortality, HIV/AIDS and child mortality. Without access to high quality reproductive health services and care, it is most unlikely that progress will be achieved in meeting the health MDGs. We will continue to support international organisations and NGOs which make an effective contribution to these goals, and of course the efforts of governments seeking to improve people's access to reproductive health services.

  DFID funding to the organisations referred to is as follows:

  in developing countries, subsequent to the new target agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. [87066]

  Clare Short
  My Department promoted the target of reducing by half the proportion of people without access to hygienic sanitation facilities by 2015 in the run up to the Johannesburg Summit and adopted it in our Target Strategy Paper 'Addressing the Water Crisis', produced in March 2001. We worked hard to win international agreement to this target at the World Summit on
  567W
  Sustainable Development and will continue to emphasise sustainable and pro-poor sanitation and hygiene programmes.

  The challenge today is being able to build-upon models of best practice to expand sanitation coverage, access to clean water and hygiene education. DFID is advocating an integrated approach to sanitation, water supply, and hygiene to improve health and combat poverty.

  Through our commitment to multi-lateral initiatives and bi-lateral agreements weare prioritising support to national governments and civil society organisations toaccelerate work in sanitation and hygiene promotion in the countries of greatest need. In particular, we currently support several major multilateral initiatives including:
  The Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), a multi-donor programme administered by the World Bank. Its mission is to reduce poverty by helping the poor gain sustained access to improved water and sanitation services.
  The Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC), a concerted multi-donor organisation designed to raise awareness and the political profile of sanitation, hygiene and safe water.
  The EU water initiative, which is aimed at creating strategic partnerships to achieve the world summit on sustainable development (WSSD) goals on clean water and sanitation. It will also improve the efficiency of existing financing mechanisms for water infrastructure through better donor coordination.
  In addition to multilateral co-operation, our commitment to achieve the 2005 water management and 2,015 water and sanitation targets includes bilateral programmes in many countries in the developing world including Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, India, South Africa, Uganda, and Nigeria. My Department also funds Resource Centres dedicated to enhancing communication, knowledge transfer and co-operation between DFID, its partners and other organisations in the fields of environmental health, water supply and sanitation. We also continue to push for the inclusion of sanitation, water supply and hygiene into individual country poverty reduction strategies papers (PRSPs).

  Southern Africa
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what volume of food was delivered(a) by her Department and (b) by the European Union, to Southern Africa in 2002; and what the total volume of food pledged (i) by her Department and (ii) by the European Union, to Southern Africa is for 2003. [87480]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not provide food aid directly, but funds the provision of food through operational partners such as the World Food Programme (WFP) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The WFP plans to deliver 993,000 tonnes of food during the period September 2002 to March 2003 for the humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa. The UK has so far provided WFP with funding for 65,231 tonnes (6.57 per cent. of the total confirmed contributions of 662,945 tonnes).
  568W
  The European Community (EC) has committed 272,000 tonnes of food (of which 153,000 tonnes was through the WFP) for this humanitarian crisis since the beginning of 2002. The UK provides approximately 19 per cent. of funding for EC operations.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development, how many statutory instruments have been(a) introduced, (b) removed and (c) amended by her Department since 1 January; and what the (i) cost and (ii) saving has been in each case. [64634]

  Clare Short
  (a) Four statutory instruments have been introduced by my Department in 2002. They are the International Development Act 2002 (Commencement) Order 2002; the African Development Fund (Additional Subscriptions) Order 2002; the Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 2002; and the International Development Association (Thirteenth Replenishment) Order 2002. No statutory instruments have been (b) removed or (c) amended. The combined cost of printing was less than £500. There were no savings.

  Sudan (Education)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the new opportunities created by her Department for the support of education work in Sudan. [87235]

  Clare Short
  My Department has continued to build on the relationships with key agencies working on education in Sudan, following a successful seminar in London in June. The support for the UNICEF education project in the Nuba Mountains is moving ahead well, some 600 schools will receive additional books and materials by February next year. As I explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 32W, my Senior Education Adviser reviewed progress in the sector during a visit to Sudan in October. I hope to announce significant additional support for primary schools in the north and south in line with progress at the peace talks resuming early in the New Year.

  Sustainable Development
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been done to integrate sustainable development into her Department's policies since the Earth Summit in Johannesburg; and how many country strategy papers her Department has revised to include a greater focus on sustainable development to take account of the conclusions of the Earth Summit. [87067]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 651W. My Department's overall goal is the elimination of poverty and the achievement of the 2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of the staff of her Department are women; and what the percentage was in June 1997. [66907]
  569W
  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 5 July,Official Report, column 622W.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her Department's funds allocated to improving sexual and reproductive health in developing countries have been administered by NGOs in each of the last five years. [66181]

  Clare Short
  My Department funds many sexual and reproductive health NGOs. Information on this is not held centrally and to collate it would incur disproportionate costs. DFID expenditure through UK NGOs (including sexual and reproductive health NGOs is listed in Statistics on International Development (table 14). A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  CDC Capital Partners
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list CDC Capital Partners executives' proportional(a) salary and (b) remuneration increases since 1997. [67356]

  Clare Short
  Remuneration structures in CDC have been and continue to be revised in order to respond to the need for different skills and expertise, and to bring levels of pay and incentivisation more in line with the private sector:

  (a) Base salary increases as approved by the Board were as follows:

  Approved percentage increase

  April 1997

  3.0

  April 1998

  4.0

  April 1999

  4.0

  January 2000

  3.6

  January 2001

  3.5

  January 2002

  3.4

  Information on remuneration for CDC executives is available only at disproportionate cost. Details of remuneration for CDC Directors were published in annual reports for 1999, 2000 and 2001 copies of which were placed in the Library of the House.

  (b) Percentage increases (decreases) on actual total cash remunerations costs since 1997 are as follows.
  570W

  Approved percentage increase (decrease)

  1997

  —

  1998

  20.3

  1999

  10.98

  2000

  3.78

  2001

  (1.47)

  The total cash remuneration of executives is principally made up of their salary, a short-term bonus programme introduced in 1999 and a long term incentive programme introduced in 2000.

  Promotion of Good Governance
  Mr. Bill Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received regarding the promotion of democratic governance. [68545]

  Clare Short
  The promotion of good governance is intrinsic to DFID's work and is discussed regularly with our partners in developing countries and the wider international community.

SCOTLAND

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to which bodies her Department makes appointments; how many members there are(a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) businessmen, (ii) businessmen in SMEs and (iii) businessmen in micro-businesses. [87396]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander).

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many engagements were undertaken outside London(a) by her or her predecessor and (b) by ministers in her Department in January (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [87349]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander).

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  A-level Texts
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he has issued on the use of texts for A-level which contain explicit sexual language. [82565]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is for the GCE awarding bodies, not the Government, to decide which texts are included in A Level specifications, and for individual schools to decide which specification they wish to follow.

  Adult Learning
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what targets the Learning and Skills Councils have for(a) the 16 to 18 age group, (b) the post-19 age group and (c) lifelong learning. [83564]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Df ES has agreed a set of new Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets with the Treasury. The ones directly relevant to the Learning and Skills Council are:

  (a) By 2004, increase by 3 percentage points the number of 19year-olds achieving a Level 2 qualification, compared with 2002; with a further increase of 3 percentage points by 2006;

  (b) By 2004, at least 28 per cent. of young people to start a Modern Apprenticeship by age 22. And by 2010 90 per cent. of young people by age 22 will have participated in a full-time programme fitting them for entry into higher education or skilled employment; and

  We would also expect the LSC to help support progress towards 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds entering higher education by 2010.

  (c) Improve the basic skill levels of 1.5 million adults and young people between the launch of Skills for Life 2001 and 2007, with a target of 750,000 by 2004;

  Reduce by at least 40 per cent. the number of adults who lack a Level 2 qualification by 2010. Working towards this, 1 million adults already in the workforce to achieve Level 2 between 2003 and 2006.

  We are committed to an investment and reform programme to raise standards, increase participation and improve outcomes for learners and employers. FE colleges and other providers will be set challenging targets for minimum performance and value for money.

  The LSC will be publishing a supplement to its Corporate Plan in 2003 that will reflect its contribution to the PSA targets.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment he has made of the optimal(a) pupil to teacher ratio and (b) class sizes in primary schools. [85559]
  572W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]The Institute of Education in the University of London was commissioned by the Department to investigate the impact of class size and pupil-adult ratios on educational attainment at Key Stage 1. The findings showed that there was a significant effect of class size on children's educational progress in reception for both literacy and maths. However, there was no clear statistical evidence of an effect of class size on progress in literacy and maths in Year 1 or Year 2.

  The Department has now commissioned the Institute of Education to continue this research up to Key Stage 2. The findings of this project are expected in 2004.Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) findings have also indicated that small class sizes are of benefit in the early years of primary education, when children are learning the basics.

  In September 2002 the number of five, six and seven year olds in infant classes of 31 or more stood at 10,600, in September 1998 the figure was 354,000. This means that under 1 per cent. of infants are in classes of over 30.

  Degrees
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what definition of a degree he uses. [84142]

  Margaret Hodge
  A degree is defined in section 214 of the Education Reform Act as an award at Master, Bachelor or Doctorate level granted or to be granted by a university, college or other body which is authorised by Royal Charter or Act of Parliament to grant degrees. The qualifications framework issued by the Quality Assurance Agency indicates that the term 'degree' should only be used for qualifications which meet the expectations laid down in its qualification descriptors. If a private UK organisation without the necessary powers offers its own degrees, it would be in contravention of section 214 of the Education Reform Act 1988. Such organisations can be investigated and prosecuted by the local Trading Standards Department.

  Employer Pensions Contributions
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when formal notification will be given to local education authorities about the proposed increase in employer pensions contributions for teaching staff. [86941]

  Mr. Miliband
  Authorities were informed on 10 December in a letter to all LEA Chief Education Officers that the teachers pension scheme employer contribution from 1 April 2003 would be 13.5 per cent.

  Examination Performances
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the schools in the top tenth percentile by examination performance at(a) A-level, (b) GCSE and (c) SATs results, which have applied unsuccessfully for Beacon School status. [87194]
  573W
  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member early in the New Year and place a copy of the reply in the Library of the House.

  FE Staff
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what incentives there are to encourage more ethnic minority and other specialist training providers to enter further education as staff. [86886]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have introduced a range of initiatives to enable further education (FE) colleges to recruit and retain good staff. Eligible candidates can now benefit from golden hellos, the repayment of teachers' loans and training bursaries. FE colleges are now covered by the provisions of various equal opportunities related legislation, including the Race Relations Act. Their recruitment practices must meet legislative requirements and colleges should be working to ensure that their workforces are more representative of the communities they serve.

  We will be working with the Learning and Skills Council and key partners from the FE sector to ensure that the recommendations of a report published by the Commission for Black Staff in Further Education relating to the recruitment, selection, retention and progression of black staff are implemented and evaluated by 2004.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for assessments of further education best practice in teaching and training; and what the timescale is for these assessments. [86887]

  Margaret Hodge
  Our strategy for reforming further education and training 'Success for All,' published on 19 November 2002, sets out our plans for developing best practice in post-16 teaching, training and learning. We will make a substantial investment amounting to over £100 million by 2005–06. We will set up a new Standards Unit within DfES which will start work in January 2003. The unit will be responsible for identifying, developing and disseminating good practice. We envisage a gradual build-up, developing new approaches in up to four specified curriculum areas in 2003–04, with the help of expert practitioners.

  GCSE Grades
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of state school pupils achieved at least GCSE grades A*-C in (a) maths, (b) science and (c) English in 2002. [82142]

  Mr. Miliband
  Early statistics for England for 2002 show that the proportions of 15-year-old pupils in state schools achieving at least GCSE grade A*-C in (a) maths, (b) science and (c) English are 46.6 per cent. 45.4 per cent. and 53.1 per cent. respectively.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the cost of raising the proportion of 18 year olds admitted to higher education(a) from its 1997 level to its current level and (b) from its current level to 50 per cent.of 18 year olds. [86855]

  Margaret Hodge
  The target of 50 per cent. participation relates to people aged between 18 and 30, having the opportunity to benefit from higher education by the end of the decade. It does not mean that 50 per cent. of 18 year olds will enter higher education at that age.

  The cost of higher education per student varies according to the subject, type and length of their course. The overall costs of increasing student numbers will therefore depend on their pattern of study.

  Higher Education, West Cumbria
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what work is being done to improve higher education provision in West Cumbria. [85464]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England is currently reviewing higher education provision in Cumbria. 1,200 additional student places have already been funded by HEFCE since 1999 for local providers. The review will evaluate progress and project local demand and supply.

  Learning and Skills Council
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions his Department has had with the Learning and Skills Council to enable local councils to take advantage of full end-year flexibility in respect of the Local Initiative Fund and other programme budgets. [87031]

  Margaret Hodge
  The discussions that my Department has had with the LSC resulted in the grant letter to the LSC dated 5 December 2002, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library. The LSC will be able from 2003–04 to carry forward unspent funds on each of its budgets, except in exceptional and clearly defined circumstances. I expect that this flexibility will be passed on to local LSCs.

  There is no separate Local Initiative Fund (LIF) from 2003–04. Any activity previously funded by LIF will be covered by the new Local Investment and Development Fund. This provides the LSC with a powerful mechanism for raising quality and increasing the capacity and effectiveness of learning providers.

  Local Government Settlement
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the statement by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, 5 December 2002,Official Report, columns 1065–1084, what (a) the total spending on schools and (b) the total Government support for spending on schools is from all sources for the Isle of Wight Council in (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2003–03 and (iii) 2003–04. [86961]
  575W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]The information requested on school spending is not yet available as the Department is in the process of collecting the data for 2001–02. I will write to the hon. Member when the information becomes available. The Department is not due to collect data for 2002–03 until September 2003, and for 2003–04 in September 2004. The majority of government support for spending on schools takes the form of unhypothecated revenue support grant, so it is not possible to give totals for government support.

  Maintenance Allowance Pilots
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evaluation his Department has made of the education maintenance allowance pilots; and if he will publish the findings. [87196]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are now into the fourth year of operating the EMA pilot scheme. An independent evaluation of the EMA pilot commenced in September 1999 in 15 pilot areas and 11 control areas. This evaluation is being undertaken by a consortium of four organisations, headed up by the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) at Loughborough University.

  The findings so far are highly encouraging, indicating that EMA has had a positive effect on participation and retention among the target group, as well as on student behaviour. It is for this reason that we have announced that the scheme will be extended nationally from September 2004. The evaluation will help inform the development of the national scheme by offering evidence of different impacts from the different variants being tested in the pilot.

  Qualitative, quantitative and implementation findings from the first and second year of the evaluation have been published on the DfES website, including via the EMA website.

  Pay Scales
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to harmonise pay scales between teachers in schools and further education colleges. [85463]

  Mr. Miliband
  Unlike schools, colleges in the further education (FE) sector are independent corporations with their own pay arrangements. Colleges agree annual pay rises and conditions of employment with their staff in the context of local priorities and the overall resources available to them. Pay arrangements in the sector are diverse, reflecting colleges' local flexibility. Government have no plans to change this arrangement.

  On 19 November the Secretary of State announced that the total funding for FE is set to rise by £1.2 billion between 2002–03 and 2005–06, a real terms increase of 19 per cent. From next year, colleges which have demonstrated their effectiveness will have three year funding deals allowing them to plan on a longer-term basis, with increases linked to performance. We will also consolidate the funds provided for the Teaching Pay Initiative into core funding. These measures should enable colleges to address structural pay issues and to use the additional resources to narrow substantially the pay gap with schools by 2005–06.

  Post-Graduate Students (Non-EU Countries)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many postgraduate students from non-EU countries were in the UK in each of the last 10 years. [85717]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]The latest information is shown in the table.

  Postgraduate students1 from non-EU countries studying in the UK

  Academic year

  Numbers

  1991–92

  29,800

  1992–93

  33,500

  1993–94

  36,900

  1994–95

  42,300

  1995–96

  47,000

  1996–97

  46,600

  1997–98

  45,700

  1998–99

  47,200

  1999–2000

  51,500

  2000–01

  57,000

  2001–02

  65,900

  1 Full-time and part-time students.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have been constructed since 1990 under PFI in each local education authority; and what the average length of time from tendering to handover of the finished education facility was. [87225]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are now 49 project contracts signed since 1997, covering 558 schools that the Department has supported with PFI credits of approximately 1.3 billion. The private sector partners in more than 30 projects have begun to deliver high quality services to the schools covered by the contracts. This includes more than 30 brand new or replacement schools. Information is not held centrally on the time taken from the commencement of the tendering process to the handover of the facility to the Local Education Authority.

  Russell Group Universities
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to encourage children from deprived areas to attend Russell Group universities; and if he will make a statement. [86835]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are committed to encouraging young people from deprived backgrounds to aim higher, including entry to our top universities where they demonstrate the ability and potential. We want universities to hunt out the brightest students and to seek better and fairer ways of identifying talent. We have committed over £190 million for three years to the Excellence Challenge programme, which will raise the aspirations and attainment of young people in some of the most deprived areas of the country. All universities, including those in the Russell Group, are engaged with this programme and local excellence challenge partnerships all have links with at least one institution with demanding entry requirements. Through the Excellence Challenge, we have provided additional funding to universities who recruit fewer than 80 per
  577W
  cent. from the state sector, so that they reach out to more young people from deprived backgrounds. We will be publishing our 10-year vision for higher education in January. This will reflect our continued commitment to widening participation and excellence.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total amount of balances held by schools was in each local authority in England in the latest year for which figures are available, expressed as(a) an aggregate sum and (b) a proportion of aggregate school budgets. [86273]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table, which contains provisional figures derived from Table 2 of the outturn statements provided by local education authorities under section 52 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, sets out the aggregate balances held by each local education authority's schools at the end of the financial year 2000–01, and expresses these as a percentage of the schools' planned budget shares for the year. Comprehensive figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Local education authority

  Balances carried forward

  Balances as percentage of planned budget shares

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,436,380

  5

  Barnet

  6,444,351

  5

  Barnsley

  5,019,782

  7

  Bath and North East Somerset

  3,362,999

  6

  Bedfordshire

  7,590,476

  6

  Bexley

  3,742,329

  4

  Birmingham

  29,094,966

  7

  Blackburn with Darwen

  5,174,240

  9

  Blackpool

  3,699,156

  9

  Bolton

  5,043,511

  5

  Bournemouth

  4,248,403

  9

  Bracknell Forest

  1,342,137

  4

  Bradford

  10,141,662

  6

  Brent

  4,777,187

  5

  Brighton and Hove

  3,140,236

  5

  Bromley

  5,678,998

  6

  Buckinghamshire

  5,003,369

  3

  Bury

  1,688,683

  3

  Calderdale

  4,534,942

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  10,407,613

  7

  Camden

  5,483,105

  8

  Cheshire

  14,286,508

  6

  City of Bristol

  5,470,381

  5

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  5,566,582

  6

  City of London

  6,876

  1

  Cornwall

  14,288,728

  10

  Coventry

  8,870,777

  8

  Croydon

  10,265,469

  9

  Cumbria

  9,618,848

  6

  Darlington

  1,592,555

  5

  Derby

  3,762,223

  5

  Derbyshire

  11,273,384

  5

  Devon

  6,946,710

  4

  Doncaster

  9,380,934

  8

  Dorset

  4,378,124

  4

  Dudley

  8,303,924

  8

  Durham

  12,689,818

  8

  Ealing

  3,688,149

  4

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  7,308,958

  7

  East Sussex

  5,769,985

  4

  Enfield

  8,259,404

  7

  Essex

  37,102,051

  8

  Gateshead

  3,970,670

  6

  Gloucestershire

  12,233,546

  7

  Greenwich

  5,704,633

  6

  Hackney

  3,582,023

  5

  Halton

  4,178,939

  8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,931,932

  8

  Hampshire

  24,803,112

  7

  578W

  Local education authority

  Balances carried forward

  Balances as percentage of planned budget shares

  Haringey

  1,861,114

  2

  Harrow

  4,211,335

  6

  Hartlepool

  2,569,873

  7

  Havering

  4,826,923

  6

  Herefordshire

  3,851,611

  8

  Hertfordshire

  30,315,945

  8

  Hillingdon

  4,586,135

  5

  Hounslow

  4,820,783

  5

  Isle of Wight

  2,027,599

  5

  Isles of Scilly

  187,015

  20

  Islington

  4,496,175

  7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,897,247

  5

  Kent

  28,004,265

  6

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,882,024

  6

  Kirklees

  5,496,015

  4

  Knowsley

  2,731,541

  4

  Lambeth

  5,713,734

  7

  Lancashire

  33,663,492

  9

  Leeds

  9,595,270

  4

  Leicester

  6,312,408

  6

  Leicestershire

  6,008,241

  3

  Lewisham

  4,502,863

  5

  Lincolnshire

  10,142,725

  5

  Liverpool

  15,682,928

  8

  Luton

  5,475,535

  8

  Manchester

  13,863,255

  9

  Medway

  7,875,247

  8

  Merton

  4,626,303

  9

  Middlesbrough

  2,908,501

  5

  Milton Keynes

  4,808,743

  7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6,423,775

  7

  Newham

  4,060,654

  4

  Norfolk

  11,939,052

  5

  North East Lincolnshire

  3,921,671

  7

  North Lincolnshire

  3,032,590

  6

  North Somerset

  2,992,817

  5

  North Tyneside

  283,683

  0

  North Yorkshire

  15,983,754

  8

  Northamptonshire

  17,727,886

  8

  Northumberland

  3,065,654

  3

  Nottingham City

  7,037,076

  8

  Nottinghamshire

  13,456,266

  5

  Oldham

  6,371,753

  7

  Oxfordshire

  11,956,922

  7

  Peterborough

  5,234,178

  8

  Plymouth

  5,323,500

  6

  Poole

  4,076,005

  9

  Portsmouth

  3,848,555

  6

  Reading

  2,110,644

  6

  Redbridge

  6,091,934

  6

  Redcar and Cleveland

  3,699,118

  7

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,402,104

  5

  Rochdale

  1,942,990

  3

  Rotherham

  2,768,439

  3

  Rutland

  325,195

  3

  Salford

  2,212,989

  3

  Sandwell

  3,786,462

  3

  Sefton

  9,120,868

  8

  Sheffield

  6,961,264

  5

  Shropshire

  3,170,796

  4

  Slough

  3,493,501

  8

  Solihull

  3,724,726

  5

  Somerset

  10,089,247

  7

  South Gloucestershire

  5,111,360

  6

  South Tyneside

  2,880,605

  5

  Southampton

  2,872,067

  4

  Southend

  7,104,028

  11

  Southwark

  7,478,215

  8

  St. Helens

  4,903,904

  8

  Staffordshire

  15,942,730

  6

  Stockport

  3,313,994

  4

  Stockton-on-Tees

  4,326,662

  6

  Stoke on Trent

  5,279,274

  7

  Suffolk

  15,533,102

  7

  Sunderland

  4,914,434

  5

  Surrey

  20,746,439

  7

  Sutton

  2,999,959

  4

  Swindon

  10,831,810

  18

  Tameside

  4,977,506

  6

  Telford and Wrekin

  2,681,119

  5

  579W

  Local education authority

  Balances carried forward

  Balances as percentage of planned budget shares

  Thurrock

  5,791,773

  12

  Torbay

  2,187,521

  5

  Tower Hamlets

  8,074,064

  7

  Trafford

  5942,165

  8

  Wakefield

  2,249,644

  2

  Walsall

  7,998,314

  8

  Waltham Forest

  5,464,149

  6

  Wandsworth

  5,428,156

  7

  Warrington

  4,461,936

  7

  Warwickshire

  9,806,597

  6

  West Berkshire

  3,911,164

  7

  West Sussex

  7,068,871

  3

  Westminster

  2,301.967

  4

  Wigan

  6,068,858

  5

  Wiltshire

  8,283,674

  6

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,300,152

  5

  Wirral

  6,038,200

  5

  Wokingham

  2,342,292

  5

  Wolverhampton

  5,802,012

  6

  Worcestershire

  11,621,346

  7

  York

  4,416,065

  9

  School Buildings
  Mr. Phil Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of schools in England and Wales were built during the 1960s and 1970s, broken down by(a) local education authority, (b) the total amount of outstanding maintenance for each school and (c) the perceived lifetime of each of these schools at the time of construction. [87226]

  Mr. Miliband
  The data that have been collected from authorities in connection with asset management plan appraisal do not show these age bands. Many schools have estates comprising numbers of blocks of different ages. Maintenance costs in the data cover both the backlog and requirements over a five year period from the date of assessment. Most of these maintenance assessments were carried out two to three years ago and do not reflect the effect of subsequent revenue and capital spending in reducing maintenance requirements. The DfES does not hold information on the perceived lifetime of each of the schools at the time of construction.

  School Funding
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Ashford on 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 28, whether all schools will be fully funded in respect of the cost of payments to teachers on the upper spine of performance related pay. [87200]

  Mr. Miliband
  Threshold payments constitute point 1 of the upper pay scale and the threshold is fully funded. £90 million has been ring-fenced this year for performance pay, including the progression from upper pay scale 1 to upper pay scale 2. Sixty per cent. of the cost of a performance point grant for heads, deputies and assistant heads will be funded through a dedicated performance pay grant. Next year, at least £150 million 580W
  will be ring-fenced for performance pay. Schools can also use their general budgets to award performance pay if they wish to. Education standard spending has increased by £1.3 billion this year, and is continuing to increase over the next three years.

  School Laboratories
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what programmes are in place between school science and design technology departments and local industry to obtain hardware for school laboratories and workshops. [85409]

  Margaret Hodge
  Nationally, through Science Year, we have secured over £4 million worth of science equipment and resources for schools from partners such as Intel, Pfizer, the Gatsby Charitable Foundation and the Association for Science Education. Highlights include an Intel Digital Microscope for every maintained primary and secondary school and an electronic whiteboard to every school with a science advanced skills teacher.

  At local level, through education and business partnerships, we encourage schools and firms to work together in ways which best meet their joint needs. This can range from scientists and engineers helping with out of school clubs, to providing other resources, including hardware, where local manufacturers of the specialist equipment needed for science and design and technology are able and willing to do so.

  From April 2001, the LSC assumed responsibility, for ensuring the provision of education/business link activity, including KS4 work experience and professional development placements (formerly teacher placements), in each of the 47 LSC areas.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he has taken to monitor the effectiveness of the School Laboratories for the 21st Century scheme. [85675]

  Margaret Hodge
  The £60 million capital funding for the School Laboratories for the 21st Century scheme was spread over two years, with construction works needing to be completed by 31 August 2002. Over the next 12 months an evaluation report will be prepared covering a sample of the 149 participating local education authorities. This will provide details of how the funding has been invested, including what the balance is between newly constructed and refurbished laboratories, and an early indication of what impact this has had on educational standards.

  School Transport
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of school budgets was spent on school transport in each local education authority area in the last 12 months. [87207]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table provides the latest available information. It shows expenditure on school transport as a percentage of the local education authority's gross expenditure.
  581W

  LEA Section 52 Outturn Statement 2000–01—home to school/college transport as a percentage of gross expenditure before recharges—as reported by LEAs

  LEA name

  Pre-primary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  All schools

  Barking and Dagenham

  0.0

  1.3

  0.8

  19.0

  2.4

  Barnet

  0.0

  0.3

  0.6

  16.6

  1.7

  Barnsley

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0.0

  1.2

  2.6

  14.5

  2.8

  Bedfordshire

  0.0

  1.0

  3.4

  17.2

  3.8

  Bexley

  0.0

  0.7

  0.2

  18.3

  1.9

  Birmingham

  0.0

  0.5

  0.4

  16.5

  1.9

  Blackburn

  0.0

  0.4

  1.5

  10.8

  1.8

  Blackpool

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  9.1

  1.0

  Bolton

  0.0

  0.2

  0.3

  7.4

  0.6

  Bournemouth

  0.0

  0.3

  0.2

  13.3

  1.4

  Bracknell Forest

  0.0

  0.2

  2.6

  21.4

  3.4

  Bradford

  0.0

  1.1

  1.6

  14.3

  1.9

  Brent

  0.0

  0.7

  0.9

  15.6

  2.1

  Brighton and Hove

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Bromley

  0.7

  0.9

  0.5

  14.6

  1.9

  Buckinghamshire

  0.7

  2.2

  6.5

  13.0

  5.3

  Bury

  0.0

  0.6

  0.7

  13.8

  1.8

  Calderdale

  0.0

  0.4

  1.5

  20.4

  1.9

  Cambridgeshire

  2.0

  1.8

  4.5

  16.9

  4.2

  Camden

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Cheshire

  0.0

  1.4

  3.6

  18.6

  3.5

  City of Bristol

  0.5

  0.1

  0.6

  4.9

  0.8

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  City of London

  26.6

  0.0

  20.3

  21.0

  4.1

  Cornwall

  1.5

  1.3

  3.9

  23.1

  3.2

  Coventry

  1.5

  0.2

  0.5

  7.3

  1.0

  Croydon

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  12.3

  1.7

  Cumbria

  0.5

  2.2

  4.0

  21.5

  3.6

  Darlington

  0.1

  0.4

  2.4

  12.3

  2.2

  Derby

  0.0

  0.9

  0.4

  17.9

  1.8

  Derbyshire

  0.0

  0.7

  2.6

  15.4

  2.3

  Devon

  0.0

  2.5

  6.2

  14.2

  4.9

  Doncaster

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Dorset

  0.2

  2.4

  4.4

  16.3

  4.7

  Dudley

  0.0

  0.3

  0.2

  14.7

  1.3

  Durham

  0.8

  0.9

  4.6

  13.6

  3.5

  Ealing

  0.0

  0.6

  0.5

  19.2

  2.6

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0.0

  1.7

  4.3

  17.5

  4.1

  East Sussex

  0.0

  0.4

  2.5

  12.8

  2.6

  Enfield

  0.0

  0.6

  0.8

  19.1

  2.2

  Essex

  0.0

  1.9

  2.9

  20.2

  3.5

  Gateshead

  0.0

  0.2

  0.2

  11.6

  1.2

  Gloucestershire

  1.2

  1.2

  2.8

  13.7

  2.8

  Greenwich

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  15.4

  1.7

  Hackney

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Halton

  0.0

  0.0

  0.7

  20.8

  2.2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0.0

  0.1

  0.6

  16.8

  2.4

  Hampshire

  0.0

  1.0

  2.1

  14.7

  2.5

  Haringey

  0.0

  0.5

  0.6

  12.0

  1.7

  Harrow

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  Hartlepool

  0.0

  0.1

  0.9

  10.9

  1.4

  Havering

  0.0

  0.1

  0.5

  16.4

  0.9

  Herefordshire

  0.0

  4.2

  6.7

  28.7

  6.6

  Hertfordshire

  0.0

  1.0

  2.0

  15.6

  2.6

  Hillingdon

  0.1

  0.7

  0.5

  16.4

  2.2

  Hounslow

  0.0

  0.7

  0.2

  15.9

  1.7

  Isle of Wight Council

  0.0

  0.4

  2.8

  4.8

  2.1

  Isles of Scilly

  0.0

  2.1

  1.3

  0.0

  1.6

  Islington

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.3

  0.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Kent

  0.0

  1.4

  4.1

  10.9

  3.4

  Kingston upon Thames

  0.0

  0.2

  0.3

  19.8

  2.2

  Kirklees

  0.0

  0.6

  0.4

  16.7

  1.5

  Knowsley

  0.0

  0.0

  0.6

  11.2

  1.7

  Lambeth

  0.0

  0.4

  0.7

  15.7

  2.2

  Lancashire

  0.0

  0.5

  2.9

  17.0

  3.0

  Leeds

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  26.8

  1.4

  Leicester

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Leicestershire

  0.0

  0.7

  3.1

  26.7

  3.4

  Lewisham

  0.6

  0.1

  0.1

  15.2

  1.8

  Lincolnshire

  0.0

  2.0

  4.3

  18.9

  4.5

  Liverpool

  0.0

  0.0

  0.5

  15.0

  1.5

  Luton

  2.9

  0.2

  0.1

  15.1

  1.3

  582W 583W

  LEA Section 52 Outturn Statement 2000–01—home to school/college transport as a percentage of gross expenditure before recharges—as reported by LEAs

  LEA name

  Pre-primary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  All schools

  Manchester

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  19.5

  2.7

  Merton

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  10.4

  1.5

  Middlesbrough

  10.4

  0.5

  0.6

  6.8

  1.2

  Milton Keynes

  1.2

  0.9

  1.6

  10.8

  2.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  9.2

  0.7

  Newham

  0.0

  1.1

  0.7

  13.3

  1.3

  Norfolk

  0.0

  1.8

  5.7

  19.3

  4.6

  North East Lincolnshire

  0.0

  0.4

  0.8

  20.6

  1.5

  North Lincolnshire

  0.0

  1.5

  3.3

  28.0

  3.4

  North Somerset

  0.0

  1.8

  2.9

  12.3

  3.0

  North Tyneside

  0.0

  0.2

  0.1

  13.4

  1.3

  North Yorkshire

  8.1

  2.9

  4.3

  13.5

  4.4

  Northamptonshire

  0.0

  1.8

  1.4

  17.6

  2.5

  Northumberland

  0.0

  3.9

  1.1

  30.8

  4.7

  Nottingham City

  0.0

  0.2

  0.6

  18.3

  1.5

  Nottinghamshire

  0.5

  1.3

  1.9

  15.2

  2.2

  Oldham

  0.7

  0.2

  0.2

  13.8

  1.3

  Oxfordshire

  0.0

  3.1

  2.6

  22.7

  4.1

  Peterborough

  0.0

  0.9

  1.0

  18.9

  2.2

  Plymouth

  0.0

  0.6

  1.5

  11.9

  1.9

  Poole

  0.0

  0.5

  1.9

  13.1

  2.3

  Portsmouth

  0.0

  0.4

  1.3

  7.0

  1.3

  Reading

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1.5

  0.1

  Redbridge

  0.0

  0.5

  1.0

  14.6

  2.0

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1.4

  0.2

  0.3

  0.1

  0.2

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Rochdale

  2.0

  0.0

  0.5

  14.8

  1.5

  Rochester and Gillingham

  0.0

  2.1

  1.6

  14.4

  2.3

  Rotherham

  4.7

  0.2

  0.4

  11.8

  1.2

  Rutland

  0.0

  2.8

  6.4

  17.6

  5.5

  Salford

  0.0

  0.2

  0.2

  10.3

  1.2

  Sandwell

  0.0

  0.4

  0.7

  11.5

  1.4

  Sefton

  0.0

  0.2

  0.4

  15.9

  1.6

  Sheffield

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  16.3

  1.2

  Shropshire

  0.0

  3.7

  3.9

  22.9

  5.0

  Slough

  0.0

  0.9

  0.7

  15.2

  2.1

  Solihull

  0.0

  1.1

  1.3

  10.0

  1.7

  Somerset

  0.0

  3.4

  3.5

  2.5

  3.3

  South Gloucestershire

  0.0

  2.4

  1.1

  7.3

  2.1

  South Tyneside

  0.0

  0.6

  0.4

  8.3

  1.0

  Southampton

  1.9

  0.1

  0.2

  9.6

  1.0

  Southend

  0.0

  0.1

  0.4

  16.1

  1.5

  Southwark

  3.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  St. Helens

  1.7

  0.0

  1.1

  16.6

  1.9

  Staffordshire

  0.0

  0.4

  2.8

  14.3

  2.6

  Stockport

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  22.0

  1.6

  Stockton-on-Tees

  0.1

  0.9

  1.0

  8.8

  1.6

  Stoke on Trent

  0.0

  0.8

  0.6

  10.1

  1.5

  Stockport

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  22.0

  1.6

  Suffolk

  0.0

  4.9

  2.2

  2.1

  3.2

  Sunderland

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  15.2

  1.2

  Surrey

  1.4

  1.5

  3.4

  17.7

  3.8

  Sutton

  0.0

  0.6

  0.3

  14.0

  1.5

  Swindon

  0.0

  1.0

  1.2

  14.7

  2.5

  Tameside

  0.0

  0.2

  0.5

  9.0

  1.2

  The Wrekin

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Thurrock

  0.0

  0.5

  1.9

  13.9

  1.7

  Torbay

  0.0

  0.6

  2.0

  12.0

  2.2

  Tower Hamlets

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  17.4

  1.6

  Trafford

  0.0

  0.5

  0.7

  13.9

  1.9

  Wakefield

  0.0

  0.3

  0.6

  8.2

  1.0

  Walsall

  0.0

  0.2

  0.3

  9.6

  1.0

  Waltham Forest

  0.0

  2.7

  1.0

  0.8

  1.7

  Wandsworth

  0.0

  0.1

  0.6

  11.3

  1.9

  Warrington

  0.0

  0.5

  1.6

  14.3

  1.9

  Warwickshire

  0.1

  3.0

  4.3

  15.9

  4.5

  West Berkshire

  0.0

  1.1

  2.3

  24.1

  3.6

  West Sussex

  0.0

  0.3

  2.2

  15.8

  2.5

  Westminster

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  28.5

  2.9

  Wigan

  0.0

  0.0

  0.5

  15.9

  1.3

  Wiltshire

  0.0

  1.3

  4.0

  0.0

  2.4

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0.0

  0.5

  1.5

  25.6

  3.1

  Wirral

  0.0

  0.5

  0.9

  9.2

  1.5

  Wokingham

  0.0

  0.2

  2.2

  14.9

  2.7

  584W 585W

  LEA Section 52 Outturn Statement 2000–01—home to school/college transport as a percentage of gross expenditure before recharges—as reported by LEAs

  LEA name

  Pre-primary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  All schools

  Wolverhampton

  0.0

  0.5

  0.5

  15.8

  1.6

  Worcestershire

  0.0

  1.4

  3.3

  20.2

  3.8

  York

  0.0

  0.3

  2.3

  14.1

  2.4

  Source:

  LEA Section 52 (Outturn) Statement 2000–01 and is expressed in percentage terms of the total LEA (gross) expenditure.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many days(a) primary school teachers and (b) secondary school teachers took as sickness absence in 2002 in (i) the Portsmouth South constituency and (ii) the United Kingdom, broken down by (A) full-time and (B) part-time teachers; and if he will make a statement; [86932]

  (2) how many (a) primary school teachers and (b) secondary school teachers took sickness absence in 2002 in (i) the Portsmouth South constituency and (ii) the United Kingdom, broken down by (A) full-time and (B) part-time teachers; and if he will make a statement. [86933]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows data on sickness absence1 taken by full-time and part-time teachers in Portsmouth Local Education Authority and in the English maintained schools sector. The data cannot be broken down by phase or Parliamentary constituency and are provisional.

  Full time

  Part time

  Teachers

  Days absence

  Teachers

  Days absence

  Portsmouth LEA

  780

  8,220

  130

  1,040

  England

  246,300

  2,461,000

  37,300

  338,900

  1 Sickness absence on working days, whether paid absence or not, of teachers with permanent contracts or contracts of over one month, including teachers without QTS. The numbers of teachers taking sick leave includes an individual teacher only once however many periods of sickness absence they have had.

  Source:

  2001 data were taken from the Sickness Absence Statistical First Release. Final 2001 data will be published in the teachers statistical volume in January 2003.

  Table 1: Estimated maintenance grant funding in real1 terms

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  England

  663

  670

  670

  684

  696

  Wales

  41

  41

  42

  43

  44

  England and Wales

  704

  711

  713

  728

  740

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been converted to 1995–96 price levels using the November 2002 GDP deflators.

  2. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  3. Includes medical and dental students and allied professionals, grant funding for whom under the new student arrangements, has been transferred to the Department of Health.

  Star Ratings
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local authorities' provisional star ratings in the education comprehensive performance assessment have been adjusted after the Audit Commission had signed off the data on performance indicators this year; and which of these authorities' ratings were adjusted(a) upwards and (b) downwards. [86750]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]The Audit Commission signed off the data related to comprehensive performance assessment on 9 December 2002, and there have been no further changes to local authorities' star ratings after that time.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 2 December, ref 83011, if he will estimate the level of funding required if student maintenance grants had been maintained at their final level in(a) real terms 1995–96 prices and (b) actual terms in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000, (iii) 2000–01, (iv) 2001–02 and (v) 2002–03, in (A) England and (B) Wales. [85812]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]Under the "Mandatory Awards" scheme in operation up to academic year 1997–98 eligible students received a grant from LEAs towards their living costs. In 1997–98 this comprised a means tested basic grant of up to £1,755 (other than in London) plus extra allowances the student could claim depending on his/her circumstances, for example for those with disabilities or dependants. The grant was means tested against the student's own income and that of their parents (if the student was under 25 or not otherwise regarded as independent) or their spouse.

  Tables 1 and 2 show the estimated funding required for LEA expenditure on maintenance grants (i.e. the basic grant excluding allowances) in real and cash terms for each of the financial years 1998–99 to 2002413, assuming that the grants available in 1997–98 had continued thereafter.
  587W

  Table 2: Estimated grant funding in cash terms

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  England

  725

  750

  767

  800

  834

  Wales

  44

  46

  48

  51

  53

  England and Wales

  769

  795

  815

  850

  887

  Notes:

  1. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2. Includes medical and dental students and allied health professionals, grant funding for whom under the new student support arrangements, has been transferred to the Department of Health.

  These are approximate estimates derived by applying the grant arrangements in 1997–98 to numbers of English and Welsh students for the academic years 1998–99 to 2002–03. Costs for English and Welsh students have been pro-rated on the basis of numbers of students from each country.

  Table 3: Outturn maintenance grant pavements in real1 terms

  £ million

  1998–99 outturn

  1999–2000 outturn

  2000–01 outturn

  2001–02 projected outturn

  2002–03 projected outturn

  England

  508

  300

  129

  37

  6

  Wales5

  31

  18

  8

  2

  *

  England and Wales

  539

  319

  137

  39

  6

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been converted to 1995–96 price levels using the November 2002 GDP deflators

  2. Figures may not sum due to rounding

  3. Figures for England and Wales have been estimated

  4. 2000–01 outturn is provisional

  5. Projected outturn less than £0.5 million in 2002–03

  6. Includes the Department's funding for dental and medical students and allied health professionals

  Table 4: Outturn maintenance grant payments (cash terms)

  £ million

  1998–99 outturn

  1999–2000 outturn

  2000–01 outturn

  2001–02 projected outturn

  2002–03 projected outturn

  England

  556

  336

  148

  43

  7

  Wales

  34

  21

  9

  3

  4

  England and Wales

  590

  357

  157

  45

  7

  Notes:

  1. Figures may not sum due to rounding

  2. Figures for England and Wales have been estimated

  3. 2000–01 outturn is provisional

  4. Projected outturn less than £0.5 million in 2002–03

  5. Includes the Department's funding for dental and medical students and allied health professionals

  Cost for English and Welsh students have been pro-rated on the basis of numbers of students from each country.

  Notes:

  1. Costs have been estimated by academic year and then converted to a financial year basis. Financial year costs have been estimated on the assumption that 2/3 of the cost will arise from the current Academic Year and 1/3 from the previous Academic Year.

  2. Maintenance grant costs for tables 1 and 2 have been estimated for 1998–99 to 2002–03 by multiplying the number of students by the estimated average maintenance award.

  3. Average maintenance award per student has been estimated for 1998–99 to 2002–03 by uprating the average assessed maintenance award in 1997–98 by increase in grant rates for each year 1998–99 to 2002–03.
  588W
  In addition, students also received a subsidised loan towards living costs. The maintenance grant comprised approximately 50 per cent. of the total package available to students for their living costs.

  Tables 3 and 4 show actual payments for maintenance grants (excluding allowances) made by LEAs in real and cash terms under the "Mandatory Awards" scheme for each of the financial years 1998–99 to 2002–03.

  The estimates also allow for changes in the proportions of students entitled to the Home, London and elsewhere rates of grant.

  4. Outturn data used in tables 3 and 4 has been derived from LEA returns for 1998–99 to 2000–01.

  5. The estimates are based on actual student numbers for 1998–99 to 1999–2000 and projected student numbers for 2000–01 to 2002–03.

  6. Costs by country of domicile have been estimated using proportions of students in England and Wales from:

  (a) 1998–99 LEA assessment data for 1998–99 and 1999–2000, and

  (b) 2000–01 SLC data for 2000–01 to 2002–03.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he plans to amend the conditions of service of supply teachers. [86492]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]My right hon. Friend has no current plans to re-examine supply teachers' conditions of service. Local education authorities pay supply teachers in accordance with the statutory arrangements for teachers, laid down in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document. Private supply teacher agencies agree pay rates and terms of service with the teachers they supply. However, we have introduced a range of measures designed to lever up standards of supply teaching and the recruitment and management practices of agencies.

  Westminster local education authority

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Standards Fund (departmental contribution)

  522,203

  844,387

  3,656,354

  5,363,083

  7,036,287

  8,800,474

  School Standards Grant

  0

  0

  0

  687,000

  1,468,500

  1,539,800

  School Budget Support Grant

  0

  0

  0

  127,900

  0

  0

  Nursery Education Grant1

  1,208,802

  506,879

  739,880

  1,358,423

  2,050,488

  1,171,716

  Childcare Grant2

  0

  55,000

  172,000

  240,880

  595,249

  557,597

  Teachers Pay Reform Grant

  0

  0

  0

  532,338

  874,748

  566,437

  Education Action Zone (Departmental Core Grant)3

  0

  0

  0

  493,000

  589,000

  432,000

  Capital4

  1,741,000

  2,161,000

  1,627,000

  4,454,000

  4,104,000

  6,108,433

  1 Reductions in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are due to the transfer of nursery education grant for four year olds to education standard spending.

  2 Westminster Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (EYDCP) has been additionally allocated £1,055,181 funding in 2001–04 for the neighbourhood nurseries initiative for Westminster. It will be up to the EYDCP to decide the breakdown between years.

  3 Funding made directly to the Education Action Zone in Westminster.

  4 Funding includes Basic Need (ACG), Standards Fund Grant (departmental contribution), Voluntary Aided School Grant, Schools Access Initiative, Supplementary Credit Approvals, New Deal for Schools, Nursery Education Grant and Childcare Grant.

  Kensington and Chelsea local education authority

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Standards Fund (departmental contribution)

  364,865

  330,902

  2,112,362

  2,975,947

  4,378,402

  6,767,151

  School Standards Grant

  0

  0

  0

  430,000

  944,500

  976,500

  School Budget Support Grant

  0

  0

  0

  69,800

  0

  0

  Post 16 Budget Support Grant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  75,000

  Nursery Education Grant1

  805,775

  251,970

  208,222

  603,585

  825,660

  891,576

  Childcare Grant2

  0

  51,000

  144,500

  209,090

  514,669

  428,981

  Teachers Pay Reform Grant

  0

  0

  0

  60,132

  841,059

  346,851

  Transitional Funding/Transitional Grant Insurance

  0

  0

  8,633

  105,755

  123,581

  0

  Capital3

  470,000

  1,277,000

  1,021,000

  2,695,000

  3,308,000

  2,646,558

  1 Reductions in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are due to the transfer of Nursery Education Grant for four year olds to Education Standard Spending.

  2Kensington and Chelsea Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (EYDCP) has been additionally allocated £936,490 funding in 2001–04 for the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative for Kensington and Chelsea. It will be up to the EYDCP to decide the breakdown between years.

  3 Funding includes Basic Need (ACG), Standards Fund Grant (departmental contribution), Voluntary Aided School Grant, Schools Access Initiative, Supplementary Credit Approvals, New Deal for Schools ,Nursery Education Grant and Childcare Grant.

  Teacher Pay
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether further education lecturers on Silver Book contracts are entitled to receive money from the Teacher Pay Initiative. [86958]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]Further Education (FE) lecturers on Silver Book contracts are eligible to receive payments from the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI).

  Support Grants
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was granted from each source of support within his Department to(a) Westminster city council and (b) the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, outside revenue support grant settlements in each year since 1997. [85830]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following tables show the Department's allocated grants to Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea local education authorities for the financial years 1997–98 to 2002–03. 2002–03 figures are to date and provisional.

  General FE colleges implementing TPI have the flexibility to use their funding allocation to meet local priorities and needs, within the context of the national TPI framework and current employment legislation.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on the Fast
  591W
  Track scheme for teacher recruitment and how many teachers were recruited into Fast Track in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [86234]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Fast Track teaching programme is an accelerated development programme for teachers, designed to recruit, retain and rapidly develop transformational school leaders of the future. In 2001–02 the Department invested £8,265,344 in developing and implementing the Fast Track programme. This included the cost of recruiting 161 highly qualified and talented individuals. As numbers on the programme grow over time the unit cost will reduce, as there are fixed costs associated with establishing the infrastructure for this new nationwide programme.

  The numbers on the Fast Track teaching programme are as follows:

  Fast Track teaching programme

  Number

  In teaching posts in 102 schools

  110

  of whom, NQTs

  88

  In initial Teacher Training in nine providers

  117

  Currently deferred for one year

  22

  Total on Fast Track

  249

  Training
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what priority learning and skills councils will place upon training aimed at adults over 19-years-old. [85500]

  Margaret Hodge
  The training for adults over 19 is vital to both increased productivity and improved social inclusion. The priorities for the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) were announced in the Grant Letter for 2003–04, released last Thursday 5 December. One of the four high level priorities (unchanged since the first remit letter in 2000) is "increasing demand for learning, and achievement of skills and qualifications by adults". The LSC will be assisted in meeting this priority by the generous budget increase that is included in this Grant Letter: resources will increase from £7.5 billion in 2002–03 to £8 billion in 2003–04, and rising again to £9.2 billion in 2005–06. This record level of investment will give the LSC the resources it needs to bring about radical and sustained improvements in adult skill levels.

  The Grant Letter provides more detail on the priorities for adult learning, including a challenging new target of reducing by at least 40 per cent the number of adults without a level 2 qualification by 2010, and participation by the LSC in pooled budget pilots with Regional Development Agencies. We are working closely with the LSC on the Review of Funding of Adult Learning which will set out in more detail how to meet the adult skill needs. The outcome of the Review will form part of the Skills Strategy which will be published by my Department in June.

  Furthermore, the LSC's approach to adult training is set out in detail in its Workforce Development Strategy, released in November 2002. The development of the LSC strategy was co-ordinated with the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit report "In Demand (2): An Action Plan for Adult Skills in the 21st Century", and thus links into the wider Government strategy for adult skills.

  University Research Funding
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the level of central Government funding for university research was for the current year in England per head of population. [86464]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are three sources of Government funding for higher education research in England: The Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Research Councils and Government Departments. The most recent year for which all these figures are available is for academic year 2000–01, when funding totalled £1.75 billion. Using the latest population estimates from the Office of National Statistics for 2001, at around 49,181,000, this is approximately £36 per head of population.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  "Living Places, Powers, Rights and Responsibilities"
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many copies of her recent consultation paper "Living Places, Powers, Rights and Responsibilities", were printed; how they were distributed; how many local authorities received them; and what steps she took to publish it. [86903]

  Mr. Meacher
  There were 5,000 copies printed initially, with a view that more would be printed if needed. Copies were sent to all local authorities, a wide variety of associations including trade associations, civic societies, the police, NGOs, utility companies, environmental bodies and groups, institutes, small to large businesses, including multi-national corporations, rail operators, women's groups, retailers, other Government Departments and relevant agencies, waste operators and land managers.

  The cross-Government review of public space during the summer, involving most central Government Departments, identified many issues that were essential for improving the local environment. The culmination was the Living Places consultation paper, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) at the Urban Summit in Birminham on 31 October.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many responses she has received to her recent consultation paper Living Places, Powers, Rights and Responsibilities; and if she will make a statement. [86904]

  Mr. Meacher
  To date we have received seven responses to our consultation. We do not expect many until nearer the closing date due to the number and complexity of the proposals.

  Agircultural Waste Stakeholders Forum
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress within the Agricultural Waste Stakeholders Forum. [87126]
  593W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Agricultural Waste Stakeholders' Forum has met twice—on 24 Septembern and 25 November. We have set up a website on which the agenda for, the minutes of and papers discussed at, these meetings are available. The address is: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/agforum/index.htm

  At its meeting on 25 November the Forum agreed to the formation of four sub-groups to address specific issues. These are Research and Development; Information Campaign; Licensing and Exemptions; and Recovery, Re-use and Recycling of Non-natural Farm Waste. The sub-groups will meet before the Forum's next meeting on 30 January 2003 and will report their progress to the Forum.

  Cattle
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on the arrangements under which a farmer may have cattle aged over 30 months slaughtered for personal consumption. [80459]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  Cattle aged over 30 months may only be slaughtered for human consumption if they come from a low BSE-risk Beef Assurance Scheme herd, for which the age limit is 42 months. All such cattle must he slaughtered in a licensed abattoir, test negatively for BSE, and their meat held under Meat Hygiene Service supervision until the test result is obtained. After receipt of a negative BSE test result, the animal's vertebral column and dorsal root ganglia must be removed from the carcass, under Meat Hygiene Service supervision, at a licensed cutting plant that is separately licensed by the Food Standards Agency for this purpose. Following this, the meat may be supplied to the farmer for personal consumption or for consumption by any other person.

  The only exception permitted to this would be if an over 30 month animal was slaughtered personally by its owner for his or her own consumption, with there being no supply of the beef to any other person.

  Corporate Environmental Reporting
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to encourage corporate environmental reporting. [87134]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have have produced a series of guidelines to help companies measure and report their environmental performance, including general guidelines published last year and more specific guidance on reporting the key impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, waste and water. The general guidelines were endorsed by the CBI and sent to approximately 3,000 of their members, and to all of the leading FTSE 350 listed companies.

  We have written this year to companies in the FTSE 350 asking them what they had done to respond to the Prime Minister's challenge to report on their environmental performance. A list of the results was placed in the Library of the House in July.
  594W
  We have also been working with the Department for Trade and Industry on plans for some important new reporting provisions, set out in the White Paper on Modernising Company Law published this summer. These would require approximately 1,000 of the most economically significant companies to include information on environmental, social and community issues relevant to the company's business in a new Operating and Financial Review. We have supported the Department of Trade and Industry in establishing an independent group of experts to help develop guidance on how directors should assess whether an item is material to their company and would therefore have to be included in its OFR. The group met for the first time this month and will produce guidance in autumn next year.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the European Food Safety Authority regarding harmonisation of approaches to Food Safety. [81062]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Food Safety Authority is in the process of being set up and the future route for input by member states will be through the Authority's advisory forum. This body, which will comprise representatives of Government food agencies, will assist the Authority in its work programme as well as ensuring efficient networking and provide a mechanism for exchanging information on potential risks and for pooling knowledge. It will also encourage broad understanding and acceptance of the scientific advice of the Authority in Europe. The first formal meeting is expected next year.

  Negotiations continue on various proposals in the legislative programme, set out in the Commission's January 2000 White Paper on Food Safety, which are intended to update and harmonise European Union food law and safety.

  Foxhunting
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the terms of the licence under which foxhunting occurs on Forestry Commission land. [86610]

  Alun Michael
  The Forestry Commission allows fox hunting only where it has traditionally taken place or where the right to hunt is reserved in the Commission's title.

  The Commission has an agreement with the Masters of the Foxhounds Association whereby hunts are licensed individually for access to Commission land. The latest copy of the agreement has been placed in the Library of the House.

  GM Field Trials
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish the conclusions of the GM field trials experiment; and if she will make a statement on the
  595W
  timetable for decisions regarding future public policy in respect of the commercial cultivation of GM crops and the extent to which field trials will inform such decisions. [84728]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 December 2000]The results of the Farm Scale Evaluations for the three spring sown GM crops, fodder maize, beet and spring oil seed rape, are expected to be published in Summer 2003. The results for winter oil seed rape will be published early in 2004. The results will show what effect, if any, there is on the diversity and abundance of farmland wildlife associated with the farmers' management of GM herbicide tolerant crops as compared with equivalent non-GM crops. This will be one factor which will inform decisions that will be taken under Directive 2001/18/EC on the release of these particular GM crops.

  In addition there are other regulatory approvals, such as those the commercial cultivation of a GM crop. The nature and timing of any decision taken by the Government will depend on the status of each particular crop within the regulatory system. The Government has a voluntary agreement with the industry that GM crops will not be grown commercially in the UK at least until the Farm Scale Evaluation programme has been completed. No GM crops will be grown commercially in the UK until we are satisfied that they do not cause damage on the environment.

  Hunting
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the oral statement on 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 755W, of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on hunting with dogs, what evidence he assessed that led him to conclude that stag hunting should be banned. [87514]

  Alun Michael
  The Bill that was published last week is intended to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the contentious issue of hunting with hounds. It seeks to prevent cruelty while recognising those activities which are necessary to countryside management such as the protection of animals or crops. All activities have to satisfy the two tests of "utility" and cruelty (least suffering). The evidence on which decisions were taken include the report of the Burns inquiry and evidence provided to that inquiry, public hearings held in Portcullis House in September and submissions from a variety of organisations and individuals.

  All the evidence has been published: the Burns report and related documents in 2000; 194 letters from organisations or individual hunts in response to the consultation letter of 31 May 2002; complete verbatim transcripts of hearings on 9–11 September 2002 in Portcullis House; videotapes of these hearings are also available, and papers of evidence submitted by the witnesses at those hearings. All of these documents are in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Kyoto Obligations
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has undertaken on public attitudes 596W
  towards the UK meeting its Kyoto obligations on renewable energy and the potential change in electricity prices to the consumer; and if she will make a statement on how the cost of electricity for consumers will affect the Government's policy of promoting renewable energy sources. [85438]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today, PQ No. 85437.

  Marine Environment
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the second round of consultation on marine environment high risk areas will take place. [87063]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I expect that the consultation document will be issued during February 2003.

  Ordnance Survey Mapping
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the accuracy is of Ordnance Survey Mapping. [86563]

  Mr. McNulty
  Statistical information about the accuracy of Ordnance Survey mapping is published on the Ordnance Survey web site at http://www.ordnancesurvev.co.uk/productpages/landline/positional-background.htm.

  Projects (Sedgefield)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which projects in the Sedgefield constituency have benefited from the landfill tax credit scheme. [86607]

  John Healey
  I understand environmental bodies within the Sedgefield constituency have invested in around 15 ongoing or completed environmental projects as a result of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme.

  Recycling (Christmas)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has of the number of(a) christmas cards and (b) christmas trees that were recycled in each year since 1990; what support she provides to local authorities with regard to the recycling of Christmas cards; and if she will make a statement. [86414]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]Defra does not hold information on the recycling of Christmas cards and trees centrally, but I am aware of a scheme to collect and recycle used Christmas cards run in January 2002 by the Woodland Trust. This resulted in 34 million Christmas cards being recycled, in addition to those that were recycled by local authorities as part of their normal collection and recycling of waste paper. Further information is available from the Woodland Trust Website: http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk.
  597W
  Some local authorities do report the number of Christmas trees they recycle to the environmental charity EnCams. The number of trees reported to be recycled in each year since 1997 are:

  Year

  Christmas trees recycled (English local authorities)

  1997

  114,427

  2998

  171,488

  1999

  413,560

  2000

  728,927

  2001

  894,720

  2002

  1,194,670

  There is no special provision made to local authorities for the recycling of Christmas cards and trees. However, the Spending Review 2000 included an annual increase in revenue support for Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS), which includes waste management services. By 2003–04 this support will have risen by 1.1 billion over the 2000–01 provision.

  The 2002 Spending Review has also announced that EPCS spending will increase by a further £671 million by 2005–06. Consistent with the general local authority financial framework, it is for individual local authorities to decide the proportion of their budget that should be directed to waste management work.

  In addition to general support to local authority revenue expenditure, Spending Review 2000 provided a £140 million Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fundand 220 million of Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) resources, for waste projects, in Spending Review 2002, the PFI provision was increased to £355 million over the next three years. In addition, the New Opportunities Fund will distribute £38.75 million to expand community sector waste reuse, recycling and composting in England.

  Waste Framework Directive
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what forms of agricultural waste will be subject to the Waste Framework Directive. [87127]

  Mr. Meacher
  Section 75(7)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 excludes from our national waste management controls, "waste from premises used for agriculture within the meaning of the Agriculture Act 1947". This, exclusion is in contravention of the Waste Framework Directive and we are preparing Regulations which will have the effect of repealing it. As a result, the Waste Framework Directive will apply to all types of agricultural waste other than those excluded from the Directive's scope by Article 2. In practice, this means that all forms of agricultural waste will be subject to control under the Waste Framework Directive other than animal carcasses which are subject to controlunder the Animal Waste Directive. The Waste Framework Directive provides that "waste" is "… any substance or object … which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard."

  Waste Management
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans there are for new landfill sites for the disposal of household waste in England. [85326]

  Mr. Meacher
  Waste Strategy 2000 recognises that landfill will still have a role to play in any sustainable waste management system, but that it will be a much smaller role.

  Local authorities should take into account the landfill diversion targets required by the Landfill Directive, to reduce the landfilling of biodegradable waste to landfill across the United Kingdom by around two-thirds in line with the timetable set out in the directive (ie by 2016, should the UK decide not to take advantage of the final four year derogation) and the recycling and recovery targets set out in WS2000.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the proportion of household waste(a) buried in landfill sites, (b) incinerated and (c) recycled in each local authority in England. [85327]

  Mr. Meacher
  Local authorities are required to provide estimates of the proportion of household waste recycled (including composting) recovered (including incineration) and landfilled under the Best Value regime. The latest results for 2000–01 are published on the ODPM website www.bvpi.gov.uk and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Estimates for 2001–02 will be available shortly.

  Proportion of household waste recycled (including composting) recovered (including incineration)—waste disposal and unitary authorities

  Percentage

  BV82a + b recycled and composted

  BV82c incinerated

  BV82d landfilled

  Barnsley

  10.0

  0.0

  90.0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  21.3

  0.0

  78.7

  Bedfordshire County Council

  7.3

  0.0

  92.7

  Bexley

  29.0

  45.7

  25.3

  Birmingham

  13.6

  45.8

  38.3

  Blackburn with Darwen

  4.9

  0.0

  95.1

  Blackpool

  12.0

  0.0

  88.1

  Bournemouth

  28.0

  0.0

  72.0

  Bracknell Forest

  12.8

  0.0

  87.3

  Bradford

  11.6

  0.0

  88.4

  Brighton and Hove

  10.0

  0.0

  90.0

  Bristol

  11.0

  0.0

  89.0

  Bromley

  14.5

  0.0

  85.5

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  23.2

  0.0

  76.7

  Calderdale

  9.1

  0.0

  90.7

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  19.4

  0.0

  80.6

  Cheshire County Council

  14.9

  0.0

  85.0

  Cornwall County Council

  9.4

  0.0

  90.6

  Coventry

  9.1

  57.8

  33.1

  Croydon

  16.4

  1.5

  82.1

  Cumbria County Council

  8.5

  0.0

  91.5

  Darlington

  10.8

  0.0

  89.2

  Derby

  12.2

  0.0

  87.7

  Derbyshire County Council

  3.7

  0.0

  88.9

  Devon County Council

  19.8

  0.0

  80.2

  Doncaster

  3.8

  0.0

  96.1

  Dorset County Council

  22.4

  0.0

  72.8

  Dudley

  11.8

  62.9

  25.2

  Durham County Council

  4.9

  0.0

  95.1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  11.5

  0.0

  86.5

  East Sussex County Council

  13.0

  7.8

  79.2

  Essex County Council

  21.5

  0.0

  78.5

  Gateshead

  6.8

  0.0

  93.2

  599W

  Proportion of household waste recycled (including composting) recovered (including incineration)—waste disposal and unitary authorities

  Percentage

  BV82a + b recycled and composted

  BV82c incinerated

  BV82d landfilled

  Gloucestershire County Council

  13.5

  0.0

  86.6

  Greater Manchester WDA

  4.9

  3.3

  86.4

  Greenwich

  17.2

  48.8

  34.0

  Halton

  10.1

  0.0

  89.9

  Hampshire County Council

  26.2

  0.0

  73.8

  Hartlepool

  17.2

  60.4

  22.4

  Herefordshire

  14.4

  0.0

  85.6

  Hertfordshire County Council

  16.3

  6.1

  76.6

  Isle of Wight

  26.3

  13.3

  60.4

  Kent County Council

  14.0

  0.0

  86.0

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  7.9

  0.0

  91.9

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  18.9

  0.0

  81.1

  Kirklees

  16.6

  0.0

  83.4

  Lancashire County Council

  11.7

  0.0

  88.6

  Leeds

  10.6

  0.0

  89.4

  Leicester

  13.7

  0.0

  86.3

  Leicestershire County Council

  14.8

  0.0

  80.0

  Lewisham

  4.2

  87.5

  8.2

  Lincolnshire County Council

  12.7

  0.0

  87.3

  Luton

  13.9

  0.0

  86.1

  Medway Towns

  11.0

  0.0

  89.0

  Merton

  16.3

  0.0

  83.7

  Middlesbrough

  23.8

  60.6

  15.6

  Milton Keynes

  13.4

  0.0

  86.6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3.3

  0.0

  96.7

  Norfolk County Council

  9.1

  0.0

  84.8

  North East Lincolnshire

  8.0

  0.0

  92.0

  North Lincolnshire

  13.2

  0.0

  86.8

  North Somerset

  11.8

  0.0

  88.2

  North Tyneside

  4.9

  44.2

  51.0

  North Yorkshire County Council

  8.8

  0.0

  91.1

  Northamptonshire County Council

  13.8

  0.0

  86.2

  Northumberland County Council

  5.4

  0.0

  94.6

  Nottingham

  4.1

  41.3

  54.6

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  13.2

  11.0

  74.0

  Oxfordshire County Council

  13.8

  0.0

  86.0

  Peterborough

  19.8

  0.0

  80.2

  Plymouth

  21.2

  0.0

  78.8

  Poole

  25.0

  0.0

  75.0

  Portsmouth

  16.9

  0.0

  83.1

  Reading

  9.0

  0.0

  90.2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  4.0

  53.0

  43.0

  Rotherham

  4.2

  0.0

  95.8

  Rutland

  18.9

  0.0

  81.1

  Sandwell

  5.4

  1.6

  93.0

  Sheffield

  5.8

  37.3

  57.2

  Shropshire County Council

  8.7

  0.2

  91.1

  Slough

  13.7

  0.0

  86.3

  Solihuil

  7.2

  33.4

  59.4

  Somerset County Council

  14.8

  0.0

  85.2

  South Gloucestershire

  7.8

  0.0

  92.2

  South Tyneside

  10.4

  0.0

  89.6

  Southampton

  10.4

  0.1

  89.5

  Southend-on-Sea

  20.7

  0.0

  72.0

  Southwark

  5.8

  18.5

  75.7

  Staffordshire County Council

  11.9

  17.9

  69.9

  Stockton-on-Tees

  34.7

  58.0

  7.4

  Stoke-on-Trent

  12.7

  49.5

  37.9

  Suffolk County Council

  17.2

  0.0

  82.8

  Sunderland

  1.7

  1.6

  96.7

  Surrey County Council

  7.6

  0.0

  92.4

  Sutton

  23.5

  0.0

  76.6

  Swindon

  13.6

  0.0

  86.4

  Telford and Wrekin

  8.4

  0.0

  92.0

  Thurrock

  16.4

  0.0

  83.6

  Tower Hamlets

  2.8

  0.0

  97.3

  Wakefield

  5.1

  0.0

  94.9

  Walsall

  10.2

  3.7

  86.2

  Warrington

  13.3

  0.0

  90.3

  Warwickshire County Council

  5.8

  0.6

  87.7

  West Berkshire

  11.4

  0.0

  88.6

  West London WDA

  11.1

  0.1

  88.5

  West Sussex County Council

  14.3

  0.0

  85.5

  Western Riverside WDA

  9.1

  0.1

  90.8

  Westminster

  10.7

  55.6

  33.6

  Wigan

  3.5

  0.0

  96.5

  600W

  Proportion of household waste recycled (including composting) recovered (including incineration)—waste disposal and unitary authorities

  Percentage

  BV82a + b recycled and composted

  BV82c incinerated

  BV82d landfilled

  Wiltshire County Council

  16.1

  0.0

  85.2

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  22.6

  0.0

  77.2

  Wokingham

  18.1

  0.0

  79.6

  Wolverhampton

  7.0

  63.0

  30.0

  Worcestershire County Council

  11.7

  0.0

  88.3

  York

  9.8

  0.0

  90.2

TREASURY

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what subsidies and grant funding were given to credit unions in(a) England and Wales and (b) the UK (i) by the UK Government and (ii) from European social funds in each year since 1997. [86976]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not readily available. However, research by Liverpool John Moores University in 1999 estimated that total public investment in credit unions in Britain could be in the range of £15–£20 million per annum.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual costs were of regulation of credit unions by(a) the Registrar of Friendly Societies in each year from 1997–2001 and (b) the Financial Services Authority in 2001–02. [86977]

  Ruth Kelly
  Data has not been collected in a form that details the cost of regulation, specific to credit unions.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ethnic minority members in the Wycombe constituency were in employment in(a) spring 2001 and (b) spring 2002. [87129]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. Paul Goodman, dated 16 December 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about employment in Wycombe constituency. (87129)
  Information on the number of ethnic minority people in employment in the Wycombe parliamentary constituency will be available from the April 2001 Population Census when this is published in June 2003. Information about the employment of ethnic minorities is available each year from the Labour Force Survey, but the sample size for the Wycombe constituency is too small to provide a reliable estimate.

  Insurance Policies
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the absence of a statutory notice period before an insurance policy is cancelled by an insurer. [86863]
  601W
  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury Ministers receive numerous representations on a wide range of topics. The terms and conditions of insurance policies are a matter for insurers.

  Landfill
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many projects he estimates will become financially unviable following the decision to make changes to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme in(a) Somerset, (b) Dorset, (c) Devon, (d) Cornwall, (e) Wiltshire, (f) North Somerset, (g) Bristol and (h) Bath and North East Somerset. [86939]

  John Healey
  The Government have made no such estimates. The recently proposed changes to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme will ensure that around £47 million per annum will continue to be made available for spending on local community environmental projects, ensuring that the current level of support for these types of projects is maintained. In addition there will be around £100 million per annum of funding available under the new public spending programme for sustainable waste management projects.

  Tax credits which have already been claimed by landfill operators, or which may be claimed until March 2003, will need to be spent under the existing LTCS arrangements. This will ensure that projects which have been allocated tax credit funding will continue to benefit until such time as they are completed.

  No decisions have yet been made on the criteria or scope of the replacement spending scheme.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many environmental projects which are funded by the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme have a completion date beyond March 2003 in(a) Somerset, (b) Dorset, (c) Devon, (d) Cornwall, (e) Wiltshire, (f) North Somerset, (g) Bristol and (h) Bath and North East Somerset. [86940]

  John Healey
  From details provided by ENTRUST, the regulator of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, the following estimates have been made of the number of projects with completion dates beyond March 2003 in each of the areas listed:

  Area

  Number of Projects

  Somerset

  18

  Dorset

  2

  Cornwall

  11

  Wiltshire

  10

  North Somerset

  0

  Bristol

  26

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  Low Birth Weights
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many babies were born with a low birth weight, broken down by local authority, in each of the last three years. [87153]
  602W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 16 December 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many babies were born with a low birth weight, broken down by local authority, in each of the last three years. (87153)
  The number of low birth weight live births that occurred in each year from 1999 to 2001, by local authorities in England and Wales, are shown in the table which has been put in the Libraries of the House.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many teenage pregnancies there were in each(a) constituency and (b) county in the last 12 months. [87154]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 16 December 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many teenage pregnancies there were in each (a) constituency and (b) county in the last 12 months. (87154)
  The latest available figures are for 2000. Teenage conception data for 2000 by local authorities were published on the ONS website on 27th February 2002 and will also be made available by ward by April 2003. To protect the confidentiality of individuals, figures for certain parliamentary constituencies cannot be released as this might reveal small number of cases in individual wards. Number of teenage conceptions by each parliamentary constituency and county for 2000 have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Jim Cousins
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the expenditure on alcohol(a) in cash, (b) in real terms and (c) as a percentage of total expenditure in each region and nation of the United Kingdom in each year since 1996. [85732]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Jim Cousins, dated 16 December 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on estimates of expenditure on alcohol in each region and country of the United Kingdom in each year since 1996. (85732)
  The ONS compiles regional individual consumption expenditure estimates, including an estimated series for alcohol (current prices only). The latest data available are for the year 1999. These data are presented in the following table.
  603W

  Total expenditure on alcohol

  £ million

  North East

  North west

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East

  London

  South East

  South West

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  1996

  1,299

  3,728

  2,517

  1,874

  2,411

  2,140

  3,449

  3,762

  2,102

  1,267

  2,618

  612

  27,779

  1997

  1,334

  3,794

  2,691

  1,963

  2,424

  22,232

  3,843

  3,831

  2,249

  1,347

  2,723

  678

  29,109

  1998

  1,345

  3,777

  2,860

  1,946

  2,518

  2,350

  4,305

  3,913

  2,303

  1,342

  2,794

  695

  30,147

  1999

  1,351

  4,224

  2,774

  2,239

  2,660

  2,653

  4,505

  4,464

  2,456

  1,448

  3,040

  754

  32,567

  Alcohol as a percentage of total consumption expenditure by region

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East

  London

  South East

  South West

  Wales Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  1996

  6.7

  6.9

  6.4

  5.7

  5.9

  4.8

  5.2

  5.1

  5.4

  5.6

  6.4

  5.1

  5.7

  1997

  6.6

  6.6

  6.5

  5.6

  5.6

  4.7

  5.3

  4.9

  5.4

  5.7

  6.3

  5.4

  5.6

  1998

  6.4

  6.3

  6.5

  5.4

  5.5

  4.5

  5.3

  4.6

  5.2

  5.7

  6.1

  5.3

  5.5

  1999

  6.5

  6.6

  6.2

  5.9

  5.4

  4.9

  5.0

  4.9

  5.2

  6.0

  6.3

  5.4

  5.5

  We do not publish sub-national economic estimates in real terms.

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer to which bodies his Department makes appointments; how many members there are(a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) businessmen, (ii) businessmen in SMEs and (iii) businessmen in micro-businesses. [87398]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 16 December

  by the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office.

  Child Trust Funds
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions officials from his Department have had with representatives of(a) the banking industry, (b) building societies and (c) friendly societies regarding the provision of Child Trust Funds; what research his Department has undertaken on the provision of Child Trust Funds; and if he will publish the research. [86295]

  Ruth Kelly
  Proposals for the Child Trust Fund were first published in April 2001 in the consultation document entitled "Saving and Assets for All". A follow up consultation document, "Delivering Saving and Assets", was published in November 2001. A wide range of financial services providers have taken part in the consultation exercises to date. As announced in the pre-Budget report the Government will now consult with key stakeholders on the detailed implementation of the Child Trust Fund.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will introduce child trust funds. [86665]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government provided an update on the child trust fund in the pre-Budget report (paragraphs 5.55–5.59).

  Cigarettes
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the assumed change in revenues was in 604W
  the pre-Budget report resulting from the October changes to arrangements for cross-channel purchases of cigarettes for own use for financial years 2003–04 and 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [86865]

  John Healey
  The pre-Budget report public forecast for tobacco duty revenues cautiously allowed for a cost of around £100 million per year as a result of the package of measures announced in October.

  Citizens Advice Bureau Service
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the publications produced by his Department that refer people to the Citizens Advice Bureau Service for advice and assistance; and whether Citizens Advice Scotland is informed of such referrals prior to publication. [84154]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]I refer the hon. Lady to the answer given to her by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition, Consumers and Markets on 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 684W.

  Civil Servants
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants are employed by his Department; and how much money was spent by his Department in the last 12 months, broken down by local authority area. [87176]

  Ruth Kelly
  Data on the location of civil servants are not available in the format requested, except at disproportionate cost. Information is available for the Government Office Regions of Great Britain.

  For information on how many civil servants are employed by HM Treasury, Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue refer to Table D of Civil Service Statistics 2001, published in June 2001. Copies of the publication were placed in the Library of the House at the time of publication.

  Information regarding how much money spent by the above Departments by local authority area is not available.

  Cocaine (Death Certificates)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it Government policy to ensure that deaths caused by crack cocaine and cocaine are identified separately on death certificates. [86254]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Lynne Jones, dated 16 December 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question about ensuring that deaths caused by crack cocaine and cocaine are identified separately on death certificates. (86254)
  Deaths that may be due to drug poisoning are referred to the coroner, who has a duty to report on the cause of death on the best available evidence. As part of his investigations the coroner may order tests to be carried out to detect the presence of particular drugs or other toxins. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that these would separately identify whether the cocaine taken in the form of crack cocaine.
  The Government recognises the concern that precise levels of drug-misuse deaths are not clearly identified due to a lack of available monitored information. As part of an Action Plan to Prevent Drug-related Deaths, £320,000 is being invested in better surveillance and monitoring systems which will allow increased analysis of information from coroners' reports and provide best practice guidance and training to coroners. It is hoped that this will improve the evidence provided by coroners on death certificates to better distinguish different types of drug-misuse deaths, where evidence other than toxicology is available.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what local government revenue from council tax was in each year since 1997. [86667]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures for council tax in England, Scotland and Wales and domestic rates in Northern Ireland, are published by the Office for National Statistics and in Budget and PBR documents for the relevant years.

  Demography
  Mir. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many single(a) women and (b) men will reach the age of 60 years between 20 September and 25 December. [87602]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 16 December 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the number of single women and single men who will reach the age of 60 years between 20 September and 25 December 2002. (87602)
  It is estimated that there will be 21,000 single women and 17,000 single men in England and Wales who will reach the age of 60 during this period. Single has been defined to include single (never married), widowed and divorced.
  These figures are estimates. They have been derived using interim revised national population projections produced by the Government Actuary's Department.Data from the Office for National Statistics on the pattern of births in 1942 indicates the proportion of the total number of 59-year-old men and women in
  606W
  June 2002 who will reach the age of 60 between 20 September and 25 December 2002. Data from national population projections by marital status produced by the Government Actuary's Department have been used to estimate the proportion who are single.

  Departmental Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it costs to produce HM Treasury's departmental report 2002; and how many copies of the report were sold at its cover price. [87231]

  Mr. Boateng
  The final cost of producing HM Treasury's departmental report was £4,912. 454 copies have been sold for the most recent edition (Cm 5425, published 10 June 2002). This includes copies supplied at discount by The Stationary Office Limited (TSO) to certain types of customer.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of average earnings in(a) the West Midlands region, (b) the West Midlands conurbation, (c) Birmingham, (d) Walsall, (e) Wolverhampton, (f) Dudley, (g) Solihull, (h) Coventry, (i) Sandwell, (j) Worcestershire, (k) Herefordshire, (l) Shropshire, (m) Warwickshire, (n) North Warwickshire, (o) Nuneaton and Bedworth, (p) Rugby, (q) Stratford-on-Avon and (r) Warwick, in the last year for which figures are available. [87029]

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

  Letter from L Cook to Mr. M Foster, dated 16 December 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on average earnings for counties and unitary authorities in West Midlands. (87029)
  I have provided a table overleaf, showing average weekly earnings, from the 2002 New Earnings Survey (NES), the latest survey for which data are available.
  The NES can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy and I have provided the available data for the areas requested where the samples are large enough.

  New Earnings Survey, April 2002 Full time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay period was unaffected by absence

  £

  Average Gross Weekly Earnings

  West Midlands Government Office Region

  427.3

  West Midlands Metropolitan County

  442.1

  Birmingham

  459.5

  Walsall

  372.6

  Wolverhampton

  434.1

  Dudley

  391.5

  Solihull

  465.0

  Coventry

  488.7

  Sandwell

  402.3

  Hereford & Worcester

  400.5

  Herefordshire Unitary Authority

  375.7

  Shropshire

  392.0

  607W

  New Earnings Survey, April 2002 Full time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay period was unaffected by absence

  £

  Average Gross Weekly Earnings

  Warwickshire

  457.4

  North Warwickshire

  1—

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  382.2

  Rugby

  1—

  Stratford-on-Avon

  440.8

  Warwick

  454.9

  1 Denotes the data has been suppressed in line with NES publication criteria.

  Environmental Health Practitioners
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to allow tax incentives to companies who take on an environmental health practitioner. [87492]

  John Healey
  The Government keeps all taxes under review and any changes will be announced as part of the normal Budget process. The Government currently has no plans to allow tax relief to companies who take on an environmental health practitioner.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contingency plans have been made to help pensioners in the event of Equitable Life going into liquidation. [86506]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: Equitable Life issued its interim accounts on 15 November and made it clear that it remained solvent. The FSA continues to monitor the company to ensure that it is complying with regulatory requirements.

  Should an insurer become insolvent a safety net for policyholders is already in place in the shape of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The Scheme will act if a company has become insolvent or gone out of business. The Scheme will first seek to take measures to safeguard policyholders, for example by trying to ensure that policies are transferred to another company. If that is not possible then compensation may be payable to eligible policyholders, subject to the Scheme rules.

  Government Debt
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much Government debt has been generated by private finance initiatives(a) as a percentage of GDP and (b) in total; [86675]

  (2) whether the forecast net borrowing for this financial year includes Government liabilities generated by private finance initiatives. [86676]

  Mr. Boateng
  Forecasts of the Government's net borrowing are compiled in accordance with National Accounts concepts and methods, which are based on international rules (European System of Accounts—ESA95), that the Government are legally obliged to 608W
  follow. Under these rules economic activity is measured by transactions, which are recorded according to the sector considered to be undertaking the transaction.

  For an on-balance sheet PFI deal, the capital expenditure adds to public sector net borrowing, assuming that there are no off-setting reductions in other capital spending. For an off-balance sheet PFI contract, the capital expenditure does not affect public sector net borrowing. Professional accountants, in preparing the accounts of Government Departments, judge whether a PFI deal is on or off balance sheet. The National Audit Office, or a comparable audit body, audits these decisions.

  The Government publish a full statement of expected PFI-related payments in the Budget, showing estimated PFI payments for the next 25 years. Service charge payments made by the public sector to the private sector score as public sector current expenditure in the year in which they are made.

  Highlands and Islands
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revised gross domestic product figures for the Highlands and Islands regarding eligibility for Objective One status for 2000–06 the Office of National Statistics has calculated since the bids for Objective One status were submitted. [84295]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. David Stewart, dated 16 December 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for Highlands and Islands. (84295)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes estimates of regional and sub-regional Gross Value Added (GVA, previously referred to as Gross Domestic Product—GDP), compiled using methods agreed at a European level. These data are then supplied to Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Union, who convert the data into euros and Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) for international comparison. The PPP-based data for sub-regions (NUTS level 2) have been used to determine eligibility for Objective 1 of the Structural Funds. The Highlands and Islands Enterprise area is a single NUTS2 unit.
  The GDP figures for the NUTS 2 area of Highlands and Islands for 1993 to 1996 were published in October 1998. These data (Table 1) were based on the European System of Accounts 1979 (ESA79) methodology, arid were used to inform the decisions on Objective 1 eligibility for the period 2000 to 2006.

  Table 1: ONS data published in October 1998

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  GDP £ million

  2,739

  2,877

  2,990

  3,093

  GDP £ per head

  7,385

  7,729

  8,020

  8,308

  GDP £ per head UK = 100

  80

  79

  79

  78

  In April 2001, sub-regional gross value added (GVA) data were published using the new ESA95 methodology, for the period 1993 to 1998, as shown in Table 2. ESA95 is the new National and Regional Accounts convention now used for compiling regional accounts by all EU countries.
  609W

  Table 2: ONS data published in April 2001

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  GDP £ million

  2,947

  3,052

  3,176

  3,217

  3,306

  3,461

  GDP £ per head

  7,943

  8,199

  8,515

  8,634

  8,898

  9,369

  GDP £ per head UK = 100

  82

  81

  80

  77

  75

  75

  The ONS published revised estimates for NUTS level 1 (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the nine English Government Office Regions) for 1989 to 1999 on 21 November 2002, and will be publishing provisional estimates for 2000 and 2001 in December 2002. The ONS then plans to publish consistent sub-regional and local area (NUTS levels 2 and 3 respectively) GVA for the period 1993–2000 early in 2003. These data will be supplied to Eurostat, who will, as described above, convert these to a PPP basis before publishing on an EU = 100 index basis.

  However, I should like to draw to your attention to an announcement the ONS put out this week about an error in sub-national, annual business inquiry estimates which provide part of the source information for many industries. These are impacting on the ONS regional GVA publications of 21 November 2002 and 17 December 2002 referred to above. The size of the error is within the range of variability seen by changes made in the past when first published GVA estimates have been revised. We are taking the unusual step of publishing a revised series of estimates at NUTS-1, 2 and 3 level in early 2003. Therefore the regional GVA series being published in 2002 are being referred to as provisional, but because the size of the revisions is not anticipated to be outside of past user experiences they will continue to be made available, subject to being marked as provisional from now on. The announcement can be found at the NS website at: www.statistics.gov.uk/notices/Impact_on_other_regional_outputs.asp

  Loan Guarantees
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy relating to setting out in the national accounts the extent of Government liability for guarantees of loans, with special reference to the London Underground. [86555]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 16 December 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question relating to setting out in the national accounts the extent of Government liability for guarantees of loans, with special reference to the London Underground. (86555).
  The responsibility for the national accounts falls to me as National Statistician.
  Guarantees of loans are usually accounted for as contingent liabilities. As such they are not included in national accounts under the rules of the European System of Accounts 1995. The Office for National Statistics has not been asked about the status of any guarantees for possible London Underground loans.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer how many engagements were undertaken outside London(a) by him or his predecessor and (b) by ministers in his Department in January (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [87347]

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

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will answer written question 83395 tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West on 21 November. [87228]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I replied to the hon. Gentleman's question on 12 December.

  Partnerships UK
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures are in place to measure the effectiveness of Partnerships UK in delivering and developing public private partnerships; what plans his Department has for the future development of Partnerships UK; and if he will make a statement. [83214]

  Mr. Boateng
  Partnerships UK has a unique corporate governance structure geared towards safeguarding its public sector mission. The structure includes the establishment of an Advisory Council chaired by Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary. The council is comprised of a wide range of representatives of PUK's public sector client base, and is appointed by HM Treasury. HM Treasury also appoints two non-executive directors to PUK's board.

  Copies of the Advisory Council's most recent report and Partnerships UK's Annual Report for the year 2002 are both available from the House Library.

  Performance Reports
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the timetable is for publication of the performance reports as set out in the Pre-Budget Report, November 2002 (Cm 5664), paragraphs 6.49 to 6.54; and if he will make a statement on the performance of Government Departments on publication of their full reports; [86671]

  (2) pursuant to the Budget Red Book, April 2002 (HC 592), box 6.3, what dates his Department uses to define each of the four seasons of the year; and what the publication dates are for each Department's report; [86669]

  (3) pursuant to the Pre-Budget Report, November 2002 (Cm 5664), paragraph 6.32, what the timetable is for implementation of his Department's plans to provide links on its website to Departments' PSA progress reports. [86670]

  Mr. Boateng
  Departments are currently publishing their autumn performance reports, for which they are responsible. The page of links was established on the Treasury's website on 27 November 2002, and is being updated as reports are published. This page is available in the Public Spending and Services pages under the title, 'Link s to Departmental Performance Documents'.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of Partnerships UK in ensuring successful development and implementation of public-private
  611W
  partnerships; what guidance has been given to Partnerships UK; and how this differs from guidance given to the Treasury Taskforce. [83134]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of Partnerships UK's business strategy were outlined in the Information Memorandum issued prior to HM Treasury's capital raising exercise in early 2001. The company's progress measured against its business plan is covered in its latest Annual Report, a copy of which is also available from the House Library. Copies of the Information Memorandum and the Annual Report are both available from the House Library.

  Partnerships UK is a public-private partnership with the majority of its shares held by private sector institutions. As a minority shareholder, HM Treasury does not exercise control over the company. Partnerships UK's board is responsible for the overall management of PUK on behalf of its shareholders which include HM Treasury. HMT also appoints PUK's Advisory Council which monitors the delivery of PUK's public sector mission.

  The Treasury Taskforce as an arm of HM Treasury issued regular guidance to the public sector on the application of public-private partnerships. The taskforce was also responsible for PFI policy. Following the establishment of Partnerships UK, these roles have passed back to the Treasury and the Office of Government Commerce.

  Research and Development
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how much research and development funds were provided by central Government to institutions in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland, in the last year for which figures are available. [84393]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government publication "Forward Look 2001" (Cm5338) shows that in 2000–01, UK government departments and devolved administrations were estimated to have spent £5006 million on R&D, including £1518 million on the Science Budget, much of which will have been spent with external institution. Within this total the direct expenditure by the devolved administrations was £104 million by the Scottish Executive, £21 million by the National Assembly for Wales, and £32 million by the Northern Ireland departments. No overall figures are available to indicate the geographical breakdown of the institutions who received funding from these sources, but so as far as the breakdown of Science Budget spending is concerned, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Strangford on 25 November, Official Report, column 33W.

  Retirement
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what incentives he is putting in place to encourage young people to save for their retirement. [86890]
  612W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Government already provides generous tax relief, worth around £13 billion a year, to encourage saving in pensions for retirement.

  The Government is publishing a consultation document, on 17 December, which includes proposals for the simplification of the taxation of pensions, thus enabling people to plan effectively for their retirement.

  Royal Mint
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place a copy of the Royal Mint quinquennial prior options review in the Library. [86864]

  Ruth Kelly
  The 1999 review of options for the Royal Mint is commercially confidential, and therefore cannot be released in accordance with exemption 13 (third party's commercial confidences) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Targets
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the pre-Budget report, November 2002 (Cm 5664), paragraph 6.25, what the relationship is between the targets set, the outcomes departments are required to deliver and the money allocated by his Department to other Government Departments. [86672]

  Mr. Boateng
  Public Service Agreements are an integral part of our spending plans. PSAs set out the objectives and outcomes Departments are required to deliver within their resources.

  Tax Processing
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 26 November,Official Report, column 159W, on Tax Processing, if he will place in the Library the underlying data for the basket of outputs for the previous two financial years; and if he will make a statement. [86909]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have placed a copy of the information relating to financial year 2000–01 in the Library. This was the first year for which this data was collated.

  Taxation (Non-domiciled Individuals)
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his plans are for the UK taxation of non-domiciled individuals resident in the UK. [87512]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget last April that we are reviewing the residence and domicile rules as they affect the tax liabilities of individuals. We believe that any modernisation of these rules needs to be based on clear principles: the rules should be fair, clear, easy to operate and support the competitiveness of the British economy. Paragraphs 5.81–82 of the Pre-Budget Report published on 27 November set out the latest position on the review.

  Taxes (Wales)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of(a) income tax, (b) corporation tax, (c) inheritance tax, (d) capital

  613W
  gains tax, (e) national insurance and (f) VAT paid by organisations and persons in Wales in each year since 1997. [86897]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Available information is given in the table. Data on the regional distribution of inheritance tax are not collected regularly. A special survey estimated a yield of about £50 million for Wales in 2000–01. Figures for corporation tax are not available and it would only be possible to provide reliable estimates of national insurance contributions for Wales at disproportionate cost.

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Income tax1

  2,670

  2,630

  2,990

  3,230

  Capital gains tax2

  30

  40

  40

  30

  VAT3

  2,470

  2,260

  2,500

  2,480

  1 Estimated income tax liabilities for Wales based on the Survey of Personal Incomes.

  2 Estimated capital gains tax liabilities in Wales.

  3 VAT is a centrally collected tax and the figure for receipts is only available for the UK as a whole (HM Customs and Excise Annual Report, Table A1). The tax share for Wales is estimated by apportioning the figures for household expenditure from the ONS publication, "Family Expenditure", by the number of households in Wales from "Regional Trends".

  Treasury Publications
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 506W, on Treasury publications, how many leaflets were distributed in the case of (a) the Budget and (b) the pre-Budget report; and if he will make a statement. [86896]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury distributed 2.1 million Budget 2002 summary leaflets and 1.4 million leaflets summarising the 2002 pre-Budget report.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what adjustment he has made to the public sector borrowing requirement consequent upon the decision of the Office for National Statistics to classify major trust ports as public sector bodies; [87561]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2002, Official Report, column 681W, on trust ports, what adjustments have been made to public sector accounts as a result; [87559]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2002, Official Report, column 681W, on trust ports, when classification of major trust ports as public bodies became effective; and whether the classification has retrospective effect. [87552]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 16 December 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on trust ports. (87522, 87559, 87561)
  The reclassification of major trust ports to public corporations in National Accounts became effective in September 2001. Available data were introduced retrospectively back to 1996. The
  614W
  National Accounts data are used for the public sector accounts. The Chancellor's fiscal measures are based on these and hence reflect the changes made to the National Accounts data.
  Trust ports data appear in the public sector accounts and net cash requirement in many places. I am not able to give you a breakdown of this. However, trust ports are not particularly significant in the overall public corporations' accounts, for example their gross operating surplus and capital formation both account for about 0.6% of the sector total.

  UKAEA/BNFL
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on how(a) UKAEA and (b) BNFL's liabilities are reflected in reports to Parliament about the national finances. [84758]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is as follows:

  UKAEA

  UKAEA is a non-ministerial public body reporting to the Department for Trade and Industry. Its liabilities are recorded in its balance sheet and in its annual report and accounts. This is available in the Library of the House and is accessible at http://www.ukaea.org.uk/about/acc 2002/cover 1.htm. The liabilities that are recorded in its accounts include financial debts and provisions for the future costs of nuclear decommissioning.

  The financial debts of UKAEA, owed to the private sector, are included within public sector net debt—the statistic used to monitor the Chancellor's sustainable investment rule and reported to Parliament in the FSBR and PBR. Provisions are not recorded in public sector net debt.

  UKAEA's nuclear provisions are included in DTI's resource accounts that are presented to Parliament each year.

  BNFL

  BNFL is a public corporation. Its liabilities are recorded in its balance sheet in its annual report and accounts. This is available from the House of Commons Library and here http://www.bnfl.com/annualreport2002/pdfs/BN1726 Report.pdf. The liabilities that are recorded in its accounts include financial debts and provisions for the future costs of nuclear decommissioning. The financial debts of BNFL, owed to the private sector, are included within public sector net debt—the statistic used to monitor the Chancellor's sustainable investment rule and reported to Parliament in the FSBR and PBR. Provisions are not recorded in public sector net debt.

  BNFL's nuclear provisions are included in the resource accounts of DTI and MOD that are presented to Parliament each year.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answers of 9 December (reference 86133 and 86134), whether a recipient of working families tax credit who marries prior to April 2003 and becomes responsible for children of his new wife can surrender his existing entitlement and make a new claim to include his new children. [87234]
  615W
  Dawn Primarolo
  No. The award would continue regardless of the change of circumstances. Working families tax credit is a fixed award and generally runs for the period of entitlement. However, a claimant can surrender an existing award and make a new claim following the birth of a baby, the adoption of a child or granting of a parental order for a surrogate child. The new tax credits will replace the current system from April 2003 and will be more responsive to changes in family circumstances.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Application Forms
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the process by which his Department compiles the questions used on benefit application forms. [80815]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Questions used on the Department's benefit application forms are deemed to be those which are most appropriate in order to capture relevant information on entitlement to benefit and how benefit may be paid, as laid down in the relevant legislation.

  They are arrived at by a process of research, consultation, testing and piloting.

  Benefit Payments
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) whether claimants having to attend interviews to assess a claim to continue receiving a benefit as a cash payment(a) will be provided with travel assistance where they have no ready access to public transport and (b) will be able to claim travel expenses; and if he will make a statement; [83998]

  (2) whether interviews with claimants wishing to continue receiving cash payments will take place as close as possible to their home; and if he will make a statement; [83999]

  (3) whether claimants will be required to attend an interview in order to continue receiving cash payments of their benefits from the Post Office; and if he will make a statement; [84000]

  (4) what information benefit claimants will have to provide if they wish to continue receiving cash payments from the Post Office; and if he will make a statement. [84001]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  From April 2003 the normal method of payment for benefits and pensions will be directly into bank, building society or Post Office card accounts. Customers who wish to continue to collect their benefit or pension in cash at the Post Office need to choose one of the account options that can be accessed at post offices and provide these account details to the Department. Customers will not be required to attend special interviews as part of this process.

  Benefits
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pension how many people claimed(a) jobseeker's allowance, (b) child-related benefits, (c) winter fuel payments and (d) sickness related benefits in (i) Lancashire and (ii) the North West of England in each of the last five years. [82147]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the tables. Many benefit recipients fall within more than one category and there is therefore a degree of overlap between the figures.

  Number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance

  Lancashire

  North West region

  May 1998

  18,536

  164,925

  May 1999

  18,242

  155,903

  May 2000

  16,375

  139,888

  May 2001

  14,955

  126,094

  May 2002

  13,679

  119,224

  Notes:

  1. Figures are unrounded.

  2. Figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Source:

  Jobseeker's Allowance Computer System, 100 per cent. claimant count.

  Number of families receiving child benefit

  Lancashire

  North West region

  August 1999

  141,535

  872,645

  August 2000

  141,680

  860,675

  August 2001

  142,150

  866,530

  August 2002

  141,780

  863,173

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Figures by county and region are not available prior to 1999.

  Source:

  Child Benefit Computer System, 100 per cent. claimant count.

  Number of families on key benefits

  Lancashire

  North West region

  May 1998

  27,100

  218,400

  May 1999

  26,500

  208,900

  May 2000

  25,900

  200,600

  May 2001

  24,800

  194,300

  May 2002

  24,100

  188,500

  Notes:

  1. Key benefits are income support and jobseeker's allowance with a child premium, and incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance with a child dependency increase.

  2. Child premia and child dependency increases are paid for children under 16 and young adult dependants aged 16–18 for whom child benefit is payable.

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre Client Group Analysis, 5 per cent. statistical samples.

  Winter fuel payment recipients

  Lancashire

  North West region

  Winter 1999–2000

  210,000

  1,207,400

  Winter 2000–01

  233,600

  1,335,900

  Winter 2001–02

  233,000

  1,336,500

  Notes:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Winter Fuel Payment Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service, 100 per cent. data.
  617W

  Number of people claiming sickness related benefits

  Lancashire

  North West region

  May 1998

  63,300

  448,400

  May 1999

  62,600

  444,100

  May 2000

  62,600

  442,400

  May 2001

  65,000

  450,100

  May 2002

  65,300

  448,000

  Notes:

  1. Sickness related benefits are incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and income support with a disability premium.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre Client Group Analysis, 5 per cent. statistical samples.

  Child Maintenance Payments
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the new system for calculating child maintenance payments will be extended to all Child Support Agency cases. [85322]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 318.

  Child Support Agency
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what provisions are in place within CSA assessments to help with the additional costs that non-resident parents incur when they have to travel long distances and accommodate themselves in hotels in order to see their children. [83131]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A system of Departures from the formula exists in the current Child Support scheme. This allows a non-resident parent's maintenance assessment to be adjusted in cases where high contact costs are incurred. In the new scheme, this has been replaced by a system of Variations. These also take account of the cost of overnight accommodation where a return journey on the same day would be impractical. Under both schemes an award only takes effect when a threshold level of cost has been exceeded.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the reforms to the CSA system will be introduced; and when they will be extended to parents already in the CSA system. [83132]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the letter sent to hon. Members on 19 September 2002 by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, a copy of which was placed in the Library. The new scheme will commence for existing clients when we are satisfied that it is working well, which we expect to be about a year later.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will implement new guidelines for assessments by the Child Support Agency for existing clients. [84170]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter sent to hon. Members on 19 September 2002 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, a copy of which is available in the Library. The new scheme will commence 618W
  for existing clients when we are satisfied that it is working well, which we expect to be about a year later than for new clients.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the website links associated with his Department, including sites now dormant or closed; what the start-up costs were for each site; what the operating costs were in each year for each site; which company hosts each site; and what assessment has taken place for each site. [81954]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 7 November,Official Report, column 293–94W.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. David Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and. Pensions if he will make a statement on the future staffing levels of his Department's Executive Agencies; what changes in employment levels will be brought about by(a) the move to Jobcentre Plus and (b) the establishment of the new Pension Service; and if he will provide estimates for total staffing levels in each of the next three years. [86731]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information on the future staffing levels of the Department's Executive Agencies is not as yet available. Profiles for staffing levels in each of the next three years are still being developed by each of the businesses.

  Fraud
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) recorded and (b) estimated level of fraud has taken place through benefit payments at post offices in each of the last ten years. [86811]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: As part of our programme to modernise welfare delivery, from next April we shall be paying more benefits direct into bank accounts. The move to direct paymentprovides a safe, convenient, more modern and efficient way of paying benefits that will reduce the cost of red tape and make the system more secure from fraud.

  The figures in the table show losses from fraudulent encashment of instruments of payment. These may include losses incurred through transactions at places other than post offices, such as banks and building societies. Figures for instrument of payment fraud prior to 1995/96 cannot be identified separately.

  Year

  Order book losses £m

  Girocheque losses £m

  Total instrument of payment losses £m

  1995 to 1996

  133.0

  17.0

  150.0

  1996 to 1997

  84.0

  17.8

  101.8

  1997 to 1998

  98.0

  21.0

  119.0

  1998 to 1999

  83.2

  19.4

  102.6

  1999 to 2000

  89.4

  19.3

  108.7

  2000 to 2001

  58.0

  19.2

  77.2

  Source:

  Fraud Strategy Unit

  Guide Dogs Charity
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what support he gives to the Guide Dogs for the Blind charity. [83821]

  Maria Eagle
  We fund voluntary and charitable organisations only to deliver specific projects or services. Guide Dogs for the Blind does not provide any specific projects or services for the Department for Work and Pensions.

  The Department does work in partnership with a range of charitable and voluntary organisations to break down barriers and improve service delivery.

  Housing Benefit Reforms
  Mr. Kirkwood
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library the local reference rents for each size of property in each locality of each of the local authorities invited to be a pathfinder in the housing benefit reforms. [85303]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not collected centrally. With the introduction of the standard local housing allowance, each pathfinder authority will publish in advance the rates that will payable under the scheme.

  National Insurance Recording System 2
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) retirement pension, (b) widow's benefit, (c) bereavement benefit, (d) incapacity benefit and (e) jobseeker's allowance cases are awaiting a review triggered by a national insurance recording system 2 (NIRS2) calculation. [83210]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 7 November 2002, Official Report, columns 642–44W.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people(a) were asked to repay arid (b) repaid overpayments triggered by the NIRS2 computer system; [83213]

  (2) how much people repaid (a) in total and (b) on average, following a request for a repayment resulting from an overpayment triggered by the NIRS2 computer system. [83207]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he plans to take to ensure that people have confidence in the pensions they are investing in. [86891]

  Mr. McCartney
  It is clearly important that individuals have confidence in the long term stability of the pension system. We are publishing a Green Paper on pensions on 17 December that will look at pensions policy in the round. It will make a range of proposals to encourage more pensions saving and to balance the 620W
  competing issues in pensions policy. The proposals will be designed for the long-term, as people need to be able to plan and make decisions for the future.

  Personal Information (Restricted Access)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his policy on restricting access by staff to personal information held by his Department and its agencies in cases where victims of violence have changed their names and addresses. [87161]

  Mr. McCartney
  It is the policy of the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that all personal information held by the Department is afforded protection in accordance with legislative requirements and good practice.

  Access by staff to any personal information is restricted to that needed for the proper conduct of the Department's business. On-line activity is subject to random management checking and full audit trails are maintained.

  Additional protection is provided and access further restricted for cases assessed to be at serious risk. In this case all access to a record is blocked unless specifically authorised by management and all attempts at access are monitored.

  The Department takes a very serious view of any unauthorised disclosures being made from its records and disciplinary action, including dismissal and prosecution, will be taken against anyone making an unauthorised disclose of customer information to a third party or casually browsing the Department's records.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance he has issued to his Department and its agencies concerning restricting access by staff to personal information held in cases where victims of violence have changed their names and addresses. [87162]

  Mr. McCartney
  Department for Work and Pensions staff with access to customer information are made aware of their responsibilities for the security and protection of customer information during induction training. This is reinforced through various publications and regular security bulletins and awareness sessions. Comprehensive supporting guidance is also available in both paper and electronic form.

  Post Office Benefit Payments
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department is doing to encourage those who wish to have their benefits paid through the post office. [84255]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are providing customers with information (including letters and leaflets) which clearly sets out the account options as part of the move to direct payment. Customers can choose the bank or building society account (including the post office card account) which best suits their needs and circumstances. The information material sets out the key features of the various accounts and explains how people can access their money at the post office, if they wish to do so.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Laws: Mr. David Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he is taking to promote the take-up of the Post Office Card account as part of the migration to automated credit transfer. [82666]

  Malcolm Wicks
  DWP is providing customers with information (including letters and leaflets) which clearly sets out the account options as part of the move to payment direct into accounts. Customers can choose the bank or building society account (including the Post Office card account) which best suits their needs and circumstances. The information material sets out the key features of the various accounts.

  Poverty
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) people over retirement age, (b) children, (c) women, (d) members of ethnic minorities and (e) others in the Wycombe constituency lived below the poverty line in each of the past five years. [85660]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The requested information is not available. Poverty and social exclusion are complex and multi-dimensional problems, which affect many aspects of people's lives. They cannot be measured using a single indicator. Our long-term strategy to tackle the underlying causes of poverty is set out in our recently published "Opportunity for all—fourth annual report", which provides detailed analysis on a range of indicators of poverty and social exclusion. Unfortunately, not all indicators can be broken down to the constituency level—due to sample size limitations. The National Statistics website, www.statistics.gov.uk, provides a comprehensive source of information that is available at the constituency level.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reform the Social Fund; and if he will make a statement. [82078]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Social Fund plays an important role in our agenda for tackling poverty and social exclusion by providing people on low incomes with grants and interest-free loans to help them manage a wide range of unexpected or occasional costs.

  We have introduced a number of important changes to the Social Fund since 1997, including a simpler and more transparent claims process. In the PBR, we announced that from April 2003, £90 million will be added to the discretionary Fund over the three years to 2005–06. Also from next April, a further £15 million will be available for the funeral payment scheme, increasing the amount allowed for unspecified funeral expenses from £600 to £700. This extra investment will bring the total amount of cash available through the Social Fund to around 900 £million and enhance the Fund's ability to help people on low incomes manage their finances.

  We also aim to improve the administration of the Social Fund and have announced that further work on this will be taken forward in conjunction with the Treasury.

  Statistics (Privileged Access)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the series of statistics to which his Department has privileged access prior to publication. [86732]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have pre-release access to statistical series produced within the department and to the following National Statistics released by other government departments:Labour Market Statistics (Office for National Statistics)
  Low Pay (Office for National Statistics)
  New Earnings Survey (Office for National Statistics)
  Work and Worklessness (Office for National Statistics)
  Individual Incomes (Department for Trade and Industry)
  The Department was also given early access to the 2001 population census results. On some occasions the Department has had access to the redistribution of income series produced by the Office for National Statistics. It may also be involved in quality assurance of statistical series produced by other departments before they are finalised and published.

  Sure Start Maternity Grant
  Mr. John Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) couple families with children and (b) one parent families he estimates will be passported to the Sure Start maternity grant in Leeds West, under the new tax credit scheme. [83480]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on eligibility for Sure Start Maternity Grants by family type is not available, either at local or national level.

  From April 2003, Sure Start Maternity Grants will be available to families in receipt of Child Tax Credit at a rate greater than the family element (£545/year or £1090 for families with a child under the age of one), or Working Tax Credit where a disabled worker is included in the assessment.

  It is estimated that nationally there will be around 250,000 awards of Sure Start Maternity Grants in 2003–04 under the new rules. This compares with 201,000 in 2001–02. Around 25,000 of the additional successful claims will be due to the link to the new tax credits.

  Victims of Crime
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department concerning the protection of new identities of victims of crime. [87160]

  Mr. McCartney
  While there have been no recent discussions between the two Departments, arrangements do exist for additional protection to be applied to the records, held by the Department for Work and Pensions, of certain individuals at risk when requested by the Home Office.

  Requests for additional protection from individuals at particular risk are also considered.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how many people became newly entitled for the 2002–03 winter fuel payment and who needed to make a claim before 20 September in order to receive their payment before Christmas but failed to do so; and what the value was of such payments. [87600]

  Mr. McCartney
  We estimate that for winter 2002–03, there could be around 500,000 people newly entitled to a winter fuel payment. Some 250,000 of these are being paid automatically but others, who are not in receipt of certain benefits, will need to claim.

  By 20 September 2002, around 170,000 claim forms had been received, although some of these may have been from people entitled to an automatic payment. By the end of November, about a further 35,000 claims had been received.

  It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the value of unclaimed winter fuel payments because the amount due depends on the composition of the household. It is up to an individual, where a claim is necessary, to decide whether or not to make that claim.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how many single(a) women and (b) men in 2002 will reach the age of 60 years after the qualifying week for winter fuel payment eligibility, but before 25 December. [87601]

  Mr. McCartney
  It is estimated that around 18,000 single women will attain the age of 60 after the qualifying week (16 to 22 September) and before 25 December 2002 in Great Britain.

  It is estimated that around 13,000 single men will attain the age of 60 after the qualifying week (16 to 22 September) and before 25 December 2002 in Great Britain.

  Note:

  The figures have been calculated using the latest GAD population projections and the Family Resources Survey.

CABINET OFFICE

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office to which bodies the Cabinet Office makes appointments; how many members there are(a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) businessmen, (ii) businessmen in SMEs and (iii) businessmen in micro-businesses. [87387]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has published information on public bodies and appointments to them in "Public Bodies 2001". Copies of this publication may be found in the House Libraries. It gives details on the number of members in total, for each body and a breakdown by gender.

  There is no requirement to collect data and analyse how many of the appointees are businessmen and of different sized businesses. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many times the Better Regulation Task Force has met in the last year; what allowances from public funds are made available to members of the Better Regulation Task Force; and what the cost has been since the task force was established. [87608]

  Mr. Alexander
  There were 10 meetings of the Better Regulation Task Force during the past year. Members of the task force are unpaid, but can claim reasonable travel and subsistence expenses. Before July 1999, when a dedicated support team was established, the administrative costs for the task force were met from within the budget of the Regulatory Impact Unit (and its predecessor) in the Cabinet Office. It is not possible to identify the specific costs within this overall budget. But over the period from July 1999 to the end of November 2002, the administrative and running costs of the task force, covering staff salaries, printing and publication costs etc., have totalled approximately £1,422,000.

  Civil Servants and Spending
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many civil servants are employed by his Department; and how much money was spent by his Department in the last 12 months, broken down by local authority area. [87178]

  Mr. Alexander
  The data are not available in the format requested, except at disproportionate cost. Data for the number of civil servants in the major Departments are published in Table D of Civil Service Statistics, copies of which are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. The latest information, for April 2001, was published in June this year. The remaining information is available for the Government Office Regions of Great Britain.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many engagements were undertaken outside London(a) by him or his predecessor and (b) by Ministers in the Cabinet Office in January (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [87433]

  Mr. Alexander
  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.

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

  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.

  Panel for Regulatory Accountability
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many times the Panel for Regulatory
  625W
  Accountability has met in the last year; what allowances from public funds are made available to members of the Panel for Regulatory Accountability; and what the cost was in each year since 1997. [87609]

  Mr. Alexander
  The panel has been a Cabinet Committee since July 2001. It is established practice under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information that information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committee business is not disclosed.

  Prior to this, no allowances from public funds were made available to members of the panel in relation to their membership.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many regulatory reform orders have been made since the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 came into force; how many regulatory reform orders are before Parliament; and how many proposed regulatory reform orders were out to public consultation on 1 December. [87604]

  Mr. Alexander
  Since the Regulatory Reform Act came into force in April 2001 we have made six regulatory reform orders (RROs). There are a further seven RROs undergoing parliamentary scrutiny. On 1 December there were no proposed RROs out for consultation, but consultation had just ended on four RROs.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate his Department has made of the total savings to business as a result of regulatory reform orders made to date; and what estimate his Department has made of the potential savings to business of(a) regulatory reform orders before Parliament and (b) proposed regulatory reform orders out to public consultation on 1 December. [87605]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Regulatory Reform Action Plan, which was published in February 2002, listed 268 items, of which 63 were potential Regulatory Reform Orders (RROs), 160 related to business. No total estimate of savings has been made. All Regulatory Reform Orders have to be accompanied by a full Regulatory Impact Assessment, setting out the costs and benefits. Departments have been asked to make these available to the House of Commons Library and on departmental websites.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Air Quality
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of air quality standards in market towns. [86900]

  Alun Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  Air quality in the UK is monitored through the national air quality monitoring networks, which comprise over 1,500 automatic and non-automatic monitoring sites. Many of these monitoring sites are situated in small towns. Historic and current levels of air pollution at all of these sites can be checked via the National Air Quality Information Archive at
  626W
  www.airquality.co.uk For some sites, this information is updated on an hourly basis. For others, the information is updated on a monthly or quarterly basis, depending on the type of site.

  In addition to this, local authorities carry out their own reviews and assessments of air quality in their areas, in order to identify any pollution hotspots. Several authorities have identified potentially elevated levels of air pollution in small towns, particularly alongside congested streets. In these cases, authorities are required to designate air quality management areas and to draw up action plans setting out what they intend to do to remedy the situation. Details of all the air quality management areas designated by local authorities to date, together with information on their action plans where available, can be found via the local air quality management section of the National Air Quality Information Archive (www.airquality.co.uk).

  Council Tax
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the cumulative percentage increase in the council tax for a Band D property in each billing local authority in England since 1996. [85494]

  Mr. Leslie
  A table setting out the cumulative percentage increase in real terms in area council tax for a Band D properly in each billing local authority in England since 1996 has been placed in the Library.

  East Lancashire
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times he has visited East Lancashire in his official capacity; and what the purpose was of each visit. [82406]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have visited East Lancashire twice since June 2001. Both visits were related to community cohesion, housing and neighbourhood renewal following the disturbances in June 2001. I plan to return following an invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).

  Fire Service
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to publish a fire cover review. [87801]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The fire cover review task group agreed the text of its final report at the end of September 2002. The central fire brigades advisory council will consider the report at a future meeting. If the council endorses the report, it will be published.

  Firefighters
  Mr. James Paice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, (1) pursuant to his answer of 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 130W, if the proposals for retained firefighters' pay as described in the Fire Employers statement of 13 November would enable individual retained firefighters to assess the impact of their proposals on their own annual income; [87237]
  627W
  (2) pursuant to his answer of 9 December 2002, Official Report, column 130W, if he will provide the calculations and assumptions from which he derived the typical increase for retained firefighters being 6.4 per cent. more than wholetime firefighters; [87117]

  (3) how many hours per annum he estimates (a) a Leading Retained Firefighter and (b) a Retained Firefighter of two years' service would need to work at the hourly rates detailed in the Fire Employers' Statement of 13 November in order to compensate for the combined effects of the alterations to the Annual Retaining Fee, the Turn-out fee and the Attendance fee detailed in the same statement. [87096]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The local government employers have informed the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister officials that they calculated this figure on the basis that, under the deal outlined in the Fire Brigades Employers Circular of 12 November:The Retained hourly rate would have been equal to the wholetime hourly rate
  The Retaining Fee would have been 10 per cent. of the wholetime annual rate
  The Turn-out fee would have been 1.25 per cent. of the wholetime hourly rate
  The Attendance fee would have been 0.75 per cent. of the wholetime hourly rate
  But under the deal the current Turn-out fee of £13.93 would have been frozen, until the Turn-out fee calculated on the new basis reached this level.
  The local government employers have informed the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister officials that under this deal the pay of wholetime firefighters would have risen; and any increases in wholetime rates would have raised retained rates, because they would have been linked.

  The local government employers have also informed Office of the Deputy Prime Minister officials that this would have led to the typical increase for retained firefighters being 6.4 per cent. more than that for wholetime firefighters. The Fire Brigades Union rejected this deal.

  The information which the local government employers have supplied to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister officials, as described, should allow individual retained firefighters to assess the impact of the proposals on their own annual income. Ultimately, however, it is dependent on the individual retained firefighter's workload.

  Households in England: difference, from bedroom standard1 by tenure (average 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02)

  thousands

  Owner occupied

  Social rented

  Privately rented

  All tenures

  1 below

  Equal or below

  Total

  2 or more below

  1 below

  Equal or above

  Total

  2 or more below

  1 below

  Equal or above

  Total

  2 or more below

  1 below

  Equal or above

  Total

  Government Office region

  North East

  8

  673

  681

  1

  7

  332

  340

  0

  2

  73

  75

  1

  17

  1,078

  1,096

  North West

  29

  1,953

  1,985

  2

  22

  577

  601

  1

  5

  234

  239

  6

  56

  2,763

  2,825

  Yorks and Humber

  15

  1,393

  1,411

  1

  14

  471

  486

  1

  8

  196

  205

  4

  37

  2,060

  2,102

  Homeless People
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of homeless people have suffered from(a) physical assault and (b) mental abuse whilst living on the streets since 1997. [87192]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not collected centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will commission research into the causes, extent and possible solutions to household overcrowding in the United Kingdom; [86819]

  (2) what measures he plans to bring forward to address changes in the number of households who are two or more bedrooms below the bedroom standard. [86822]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information on the extent of overcrowding in England is available from the Survey of English Housing. As mentioned in the reply given to my hon. Friend on 7 November 2002,Official Report, column 621W, we are considering whether overcrowding is best tackled through a modern set of standards—updating the present legislative framework or through the new Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which we hope to introduce as a replacement for the housing fitness standard when parliamentary time allows. Our consideration of options will take account of our understanding of the underlying causes of household overcrowding.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many households in each Government Office region have been shown by the Survey of English Housing 2001–02 to be two or more bedrooms below the bedroom standard(a) in total and (b) in the private rented sector; [86821]

  (2) how many households are three or more bedrooms below the bedroom standard; and if he will make a statement. [86818]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of households three or more bedrooms below the bedroom standard is extremely small which means that any estimate from a sample survey will be subject to a very wide margin of error. The best estimate from Survey of English Housing data, averaged over the last three years (1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02) is 4,000 households out of more than 20 million households.

  The number of households in each Government Office region two or more bedrooms below the bedroom standard, estimated from Survey of English Housing data and averaged over the last three years, is shown in the table.
  629W

  Households in England: difference, from bedroom standard1 by tenure (average 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02)

  thousands

  Owner occupied

  Social rented

  Privately rented

  All tenures

  1 below

  Equal or below

  Total

  2 or more below

  1 below

  Equal or above

  Total

  2 or more below

  1 below

  Equal or above

  Total

  2 or more below

  1 below

  Equal or above

  Total

  East Midlands

  14

  1,279

  1,295

  1

  10

  304

  314

  0

  3

  143

  146

  2

  28

  1,726

  1,756

  West Midlands

  23

  1,501

  1,527

  1

  18

  458

  477

  0

  5

  148

  153

  4

  47

  2,107

  2,157

  Eastern

  14

  1,625

  1,641

  1

  15

  368

  385

  1

  5

  202

  208

  3

  35

  2,196

  2,234

  London

  41

  1,693

  1,739

  10

  86

  702

  797

  4

  25

  406

  435

  19

  152

  2,801

  2,971

  South East

  21

  2,480

  2,503

  2

  24

  430

  456

  0

  9

  328

  338

  4

  55

  3,238

  3,298

  South West

  16

  1,517

  1,533

  1

  11

  298

  310

  0

  6

  219

  225

  2

  32

  2,034

  2,067

  England

  182

  14,114

  14,315

  19

  208

  3,940

  4,167

  7

  69

  1,948

  2,023

  45

  458

  20,002

  20,506

  percentages

  North East

  1.2

  98.8

  100.0

  0.2

  2.1

  977

  100.0

  0.0

  2.7

  97.3

  100.0

  0.1

  1.6

  98.3

  100.0

  North West

  1.5

  98.4

  100.0

  0.3

  3.7

  96.1

  100.0

  0.2

  2.1

  97.6

  100.0

  0.2

  2.0

  97.8

  100.0

  Yorks and Humber

  1.1

  98.7

  100.0

  0.2

  2.8

  96.9

  100.0

  0.4

  3.8

  95.8

  100.0

  0.2

  1.8

  98.0

  100.0

  East Midlands

  1.1

  98.8

  100.0

  0.3

  3.2

  96.5

  100.0

  0.0

  2.3

  97.7

  100.0

  0.1

  1.6

  98.3

  1O0.0

  West Midlands

  1.5

  98.3

  100.0

  0.3

  3.8

  95.9

  100.0

  0.3

  3.1

  96.6

  100.0

  0.2

  2.2

  97.6

  100.0

  Eastern

  0.8

  99.1

  100.0

  0.3

  4.0

  95.7

  100.0

  0.3

  2.6

  97.1

  100.0

  0.1

  1.6

  98.3

  100.0

  London

  2.3

  97.3

  100.0

  1.2

  10.8

  88.0

  100.0

  0.9

  5.8

  93.3

  100.0

  0.6

  5.1

  94.3

  100.0

  South East

  0.9

  99.1

  100.0

  0.4

  5.3

  94.3

  100.0

  0.1

  2.8

  97.1

  100.0

  0.1

  1.7

  98.2

  100.0

  South West

  1.0

  99.0

  100.0

  0.3

  3.4

  96.3

  100.0

  0.2

  2.5

  97.3

  100.0

  0.1

  1.5

  98.4

  100.0

  England

  1.3

  98.6

  100.0

  0.5

  5.0

  94.6

  100.0

  0.3

  3.4

  96.3

  100.0

  0.2

  2.2

  97.5

  100.0

  1 Bedroom standard is an indicator of occupation density. A notional number of bedrooms are allocated to each household in accordance with its age/sex/marital status composition and the relationship of the members to each other. This is then compared with the actual number of bedrooms (including bedsitters) available for the sole use of the household.

  Source:

  Survey of England Housing. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  Inspectors
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what standards of competence he sets for(a) building regulations inspectors and (b) National House-Building Council inspectors. [86907]

  Mr. Leslie
  It is for each local authority with building control responsibilities to decide on the qualifications and experience of officers employed by them on building control duties.

  The National House-Building Council is an independent, non-profit distributing company. Inspectors employed by the NHBC carry out inspections in connection with their Buildmark new home warranty scheme. It is for the NHBC to decide whom to employ for purposes connected with that non-statutory scheme.

  NHBC inspectors also carry out inspections for building control purposes in cases where NHBC's subsidiary, NHBC Building Control Services Ltd, is acting as an approved inspector. Under Part II of the Building Act 1984, a person carrying out regulated building work may engage an approved inspector as an alternative to applying to the local authority building control department.

  Approved inspectors are subject to periodic re-approval by the Construction Industry Council, which is the body designated by the Secretary of State for the purpose of approving inspectors under Part II of the Building Act. The CIC have drawn up criteria for assessing the qualifications and experience of companies and individuals applying or re-applying for the status of approved inspector.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will meet a delegation comprising of hon. Members from Dorset and representatives of the county and district councils to discuss the local authority funding settlement for the county. [87557]
  630W
  Mr. Raynsford
  I would be happy to consider meeting such a delegation, if a representative of the authorities concerned were to write to me setting out the points they wish to raise.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people he estimates are sleeping rough. [87422]

  Mrs. Roche
  As of June 2002, local authority statistics show that around 600 people are sleeping rough on any one night. This represents a reduction of around two-thirds since 1998 when it was estimated that nearly 2,000 people were sleeping rough on any one night.

  Sangatte
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether persons from Sangatte admitted to the UK under special arrangements will be eligible for local authority housing at the end of their period in hotels financed by central Government. [87510]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Those persons admitted from Sangatte to the United Kingdom under special arrangements are being brought here, not as asylum seekers, but on work visas to contribute and pay taxes. Once they arrive they are being given accommodation while we start the process of training and job matching. We are confident that they will be able to move on to alternative accommodation within three months. In the event of an individual being unable to find their own accommodation they would be eligible to apply for assistance from a local housing authority, but we expect numbers to be small and any burden to be spread across different local authorities.

  Sellers' Packs
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends to publish the two further consultation papers on the seller's pack. [87596]
  631W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to publish early next year consultation papers on the detailed contents of the seller's pack and the application of sellers packs in areas of lowest property values and demand.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2003–04 (1) what figure was used for the number of children of claimants of(a) working families tax credit and (b) disabled person's tax credit, used in the calculation of (i) additional needs for primary pupils and (ii) additional needs for secondary pupils, for each local authority; [87018]

  (2) how many pupils (a) of primary school age have a mother tongue that is not English and (b) of secondary school age are in low achieving ethnic groups in each local authority; [87016]

  (3) what figures were used in the calculation of (a) district, (b) environmental protection and (c) cultural services deprivation top-up for each non-metropolitan district council in non-metropolitan areas; [87020]

  (4) what was the average number of dependent children of claimants receiving income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance used in the calculation of (a) additional needs for primary pupils and (b) additional needs for secondary pupils, for each local authority; [87017]

  (5) what figure was used in the calculation of net in-commuters and day visitors of each non-metropolitan district council in non-metropolitan areas. [87021]

  Mr. Leslie
  The figures for the number of children of recipients of working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit used in the additional education needs for both primary and secondary pupils are from the August 2001, November 2001, February 2002 and May 2002 releases, as published by the Inland Revenue.

  For reasons of confidentiality, data on children of working families tax credit recipients are combined with children of disabled person's tax credit recipients by the Inland Revenue, and are therefore not available separately. The combined figures are used within the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement.

  The same data are used for both (i) additional needs for primary pupils and (ii) additional needs for secondary pupils.

  The total number of working families and disabled person's tax credit recipients, in each authority, together with the other information requested (and all the data used in calculating the provisional Local Government

  Number of anti-social behaviour orders granted, as notified to the Home Office, by duration from 1 April 1999 to 30 June 2002, England and Wales

  2 years

  2.25 years

  2.5 years

  2.75 years

  3 years

  3.25 years

  3.75 years

  4 years

  5 years and over

  Until further order

  Not known

  Total

  1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  104

  104

  June 20002

  9

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  13

  July to September 2000

  32

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  1

  5

  2

  4

  50

  October to December 2000

  41

  0

  0

  0

  13

  0

  0

  3

  6

  7

  1

  71

  January to March 2001

  48

  1

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  4

  3

  7

  2

  76

  632W
  Finance Settlement) are on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website within "Table 1" of the data section. http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0304/tabs034.htm

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Aerosol Spray Paint
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to take to ban sales of aerosol spray paint to children across the UK. [86424]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government take the problem of graffiti very seriously and are examining ways in which it they can reduce the problem. The London Local Authorities Bill, which is currently before Parliament, would clamp down on the sale of spray paints to under 18 year olds within the London area. We are looking carefully at whether we should adopt this approach nationally as part of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been in force in each month since their introduction. [86182]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]An anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) is a civil order that has been available to the police and local authorities since April 1999. ASBOs are granted for a minimum period of two years.

  From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000, data on the number of ASBOs issued was collected by police force area. From 1 June 2000, official statistics on the number of ASBOs issued are based on quarterly returns from Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs).

  Available information in the table shows the number of notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs issued from 1 April 1999 up to 30 June 2002 (latest available) and by duration of order given since June 2000. We do not collect information on the number of ASBOs in force at any given period, and cannot estimate it reliably from the data in the table.

  We are aware that the numbers of ASBOs made locally have been consistently under reported in returns made by magistrates' courts and are considering how reporting can be improved.

  We are aware that the numbers of ASBOs made locally have been consistently under reported in returns made by magistrates' courts and are considering how reporting can be improved.
  633W

  Number of anti-social behaviour orders granted, as notified to the Home Office, by duration from 1 April 1999 to 30 June 2002, England and Wales

  2 years

  2.25 years

  2.5 years

  2.75 years

  3 years

  3.25 years

  3.75 years

  4 years

  5 years and over

  Until further order

  Not known

  Total

  April to June 2001

  44

  0

  1

  0

  20

  0

  0

  4

  14

  7

  3

  93

  July to September 2001

  27

  0

  1

  1

  19

  0

  1

  4

  8

  3

  3

  67

  October to December 2001

  26

  1

  1

  0

  14

  1

  0

  1

  9

  4

  0

  57

  January to March 2002

  19

  0

  2

  0

  9

  1

  0

  2

  12

  6

  0

  51

  April to June 2002

  28

  0

  1

  0

  18

  0

  0

  2

  16

  7

  0

  72

  Total

  274

  2

  6

  1

  111

  2

  1

  22

  74

  43

  118

  654

  1 Total figures only available from police force areas for period 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000.

  2 As from 1 June 2000, data collected centrally by Magistrates' Courts Committee (MCC) area by quarter.

  3 Not available.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average it takes to introduce an anti-social behaviour order. [86427]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]A survey of anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) monitoring forms indicated that the court process was taking on average 13 weeks. To improve the effectiveness of ASBOs and reduce delays, legislative changes have been made under the Police Reform Act 2002 and new guidance published. Courts may now make an interim order to protect the community from the start of the court process, and criminal courts may make orders on conviction, thereby avoiding the need for a separate court process and making better use of court time. In addition, orders may now also cover a wider area, and from 1 April 2003, county courts will be able to make orders when dealing with other civil action.

  We will continue to review implementation of these orders with a view to considering whether they can be further streamlined.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide temporary accommodation for asylum seekers within the Daventry district; and if he will make a statement. [87120]

  Beverley Hughes
  Daventry is not currently a dispersal area for asylum seekers who need accommodation. Asylum seekers without accommodation will be provided with emergency accommodation while their application for support is assessed. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) does not have any current plans to use Daventry as either a dispersal area or for the emergency accommodation of asylum seekers.

  Urgent accommodation has had to be found to cater for the arrivals from Sangatte. As part of this exercise NASS did consider a site (the Landmark hotel) in the Daventry district. In the event a decision was taken not to use the site for this or any other purpose at this time.

  NASS needs to keep its accommodation needs under continual review. While I cannot say that the area will never be used to accommodate asylum seekers I can say that we have no present plans to do so.
  634W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it a policy of the Government to require all asylum seekers to comply with a medical examination; and if he will make a statement. [87556]

  Beverley Hughes
  We do not believe that it is necessary to require all asylum seekers to undergo a medical examination as a matter of policy although development of the new policy initiatives introduced by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act will effectively introduce screening to all those who attend an induction centre.

  Once they are fully operational we intend that all new asylum applicants who go to an induction centre on arrival will undergo basic health screening. A pilot screening programme started at the Dover induction centre this summer. The evaluation of this pilot has not yet been completed. Immigration officers are obliged, under the terms of the immigration rules, to refer for medical examination anyone who mentions health or medical treatment as a reason for coming to the United Kingdom or who appears not to be in good physical or mental health. Furthermore those seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom for a period of more than six months should normally be referred.

  Asylum Seekers (Support)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of applicants per week who, from 8 January 2003, will no longer be eligible for support as a result of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; what steps he will take to monitor the number of in-country asylum applicants refused National Asylum Support Service assistance as a result of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, whose claim for asylum is subsequently refused on the grounds of non-compliance; and if he will make a statement. [85820]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]Based on an analysis of recent intake it is estimated that, from 8 January 2003, 700 applicants per week (ie an average of about 100 per day) would fall into the category of people who could no longer be eligible for support as a result of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the 2002 Act) unless they could show that they had made their asylum application as soon as reasonably practicable after entering the United Kingdom.
  635W
  From 8 January 2003, there will be detailed internal monitoring of the numbers refused National Asylum Support Service support as a result of section 55 of the 2002 Act. This information will be used to track each case through to service of the initial decision on the asylum application and to monitor the number subsequently refused on the grounds of non-compliance.

  Child Safety Orders
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child safety orders have been in place in each month since their introduction. [86178]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]Two child safety orders were issued in the areas in which they were piloted between September 1998 and June 2000.

  Child Curfew Schemes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local child curfew schemes were in force in each month between(a) October 1998 and July 2001 and (b) August 2001 and the latest month for which figures are available. [86181]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]No applications have yet been received to establish a local child curfew scheme under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Some local authorities and police forces have considered the possibility, but concluded that other measures should be taken to tackle relevant local problems.

  Class A Drugs (Teenagers)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many teenagers have tried class A drugs in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the north-east of England and (c) the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. [86499]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The 2001–02 British Crime Survey estimates that 11 per cent. of 16 to 19 year-olds in England and Wales have tried a class A drug. The equivalent estimate for the north-east of England is 14 per cent. The difference between theEngland and Wales estimate and the north-east estimate is not statistically significant. These data are not available at constituency level.

  The drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in England in 2001 survey estimates that six per cent. of school children aged between 11 and 15 years old have tried a class A drug. No geographical breakdown is available for this age group.

  Community Beat Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community beat officers are working in the London Borough of Wandsworth. [86825]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Community Support Officers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities 636W
  contributed to the cost of recruiting, training and equipping local neighbourhood special constables for duty in their area in each year since section 2 of the Police Act 1996 came into operation. [86916]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]This information is not collected centrally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to reply to the letter forwarded to him, dated 17 October 2002, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Burham Fajax; [86657]

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letter to him, dated 17 October 2002, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Burham Fatah. [87662]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 13 December 2002.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 28 October regarding a constituent, ref. 22821/2. [86873]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]My noble Friend (Lord Filkin), wrote to my right hon. Friend on 11 December 2002.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 14 August, 11 September, 7 November and 5 December relating to her constituent, Mr. Mohamed Mady. [87006]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 16 December 2002.

  County Support Officers
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if county support officers will be issued with(a) body armour, (b) radios and (c) other forms of officer safety equipment; if they will undergo (i) officer safety training and (ii) first aid training: who will supervise the CSOs; whether additional training in supervision will be provided to officers assuming this responsibility; who will complete CSO annual appraisals; if they will form part of the service PDRs; who will be responsible for CSO professional development; and who will be required to check and monitor reports generated by the CSOs; [86809]

  (2) if there will be a facility for the services of a county support officer to be dispensed with if the required standards are not achieved; if there will be grading within the CSO infrastructure; who will be responsible for CSO complaints and discipline; what arrangements have been made for CSO transport; if the CSOs will have their own drivers; and who will deal with administration in connection with CSOs; [86808]

  (3) who will brief and de-brief county support officers; if they will be posted operationally with police officers; who will be assuming responsibility for discharging a duty of care towards CSOs; what impact he estimates additional supervision will have on

  637W
  (a) sergeants and inspectors; where CSOs will be based; what educational standards are necessary for recruitment to CSO recruitment; what medical and health standards are required; if CSOs will be required to attain a set level of fitness; what the requirements are with respect to previous convictions; what the content is of the CSO training programme; who will be delivering the C SO training; where it will be delivered; and if he will make a statement. [86810]

  Mr. Denham
  Chief officers can designate persons employed by their police authority as Community Support Officers (CSOs) under section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 when they are satisfied that the person is a suitable person to effectively carry out the functions for the purposes of which he is designated and that he has received adequate training in the carrying out of those functions. Issues such as the deployment, equipment, and supervision arrangements for CSOs are operational matters and are determined by chief officers with knowledge of the local areas where they will deploy CSOs. A chief officer can also remove a designation if he considers that the conditions for designation are no longer met.

  CSOs are a new addition to the extended policing family. We are aiming to have 1,200 CSOs deployed nationally in 27 forces by 1 April 2003. Once the lessons from the deployment of the first batches of CSOs become clear the Secretary of State, following consultation with the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers, will issue a Code of Practice under section 45 of the Police Reform Act to which chief officers must have regard, to set out good practice in relation to some of these matters.

  Crime (Cleveland)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the crime statistics for the area covered by the Cleveland police in each of the last five years. [86399]

  Mr. Denham
  Numbers of crimes recorded by the police, broken down by police force, are published annually. Details for the years from 1997 to 2000–01 have been published in successive editions of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales", which are available in the Library. The figures for 2001–02 have been included in a new publication, "Crime in England and Wales 2001–02" (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 7/02), which was published in July this year, and which is also available in the Library.

  Crime (Teesside)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Government initiatives have been put in place in Teesside to bring down crime. [86498]

  Mr. Denham
  A total of £3,404,361 is being provided to Teesside Crime Reduction Partnerships for crime reduction initiatives in Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Stockton, Redcar and Cleveland during 2002–03.

  Crime reduction initiatives which are currently being taken forward are the Safer Communities Initiative (£231,204), Closed Circuit Television (£782,650), Small Retailers in Deprived Areas (£120,000), Reducing Domestic Violence (£389,385), Street Wardens Initiative
  638W
  (£712,712), Neighbourhood Wardens Initiative (£376,550), Communities Against Drugs (£611,300), Reducing Burglary Initiative (£248,300) and Partnership Development Fund (£188,560). In addition, there are two New Deal for Communities areas at Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, each spending over six million on crime reduction initiatives over the lifetime of the scheme. Cleveland Police have also received £300,000 for 2002–03 to fund 40 Community Support Officers.

  Departmental Offices
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what timber has been used at the construction site of the new Home Office building at 2 Marsham Street; who supplied this timber; and what evidence the supplier gave that it came from legal and sustainable sources. [83927]

  Beverley Hughes
  As the former towers are still being demolished no construction works have so far been undertaken on the Home Office's new building at 2 Marsham Street. Foundation works are scheduled to start in December.

  While the timing of timber purchases is not yet known the contract management arrangements will provide information to the Department about what timber has been purchased and to ensure that it is sourced from suppliers in a legal and sustainable way.

  Drug-related Crime (Teesside)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of crime in Teesside is deemed to be drug-related. [86458]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Recorded crime figures include statistics on drugs offences, such as possession, and on acquisitive crimes, such as burglary, but do not record whether the latter are related to an offender's drug habits.

  However, the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) research programme, which involves interviewing and drug testing those arrested by the police, confirms a link between drug misuse and crime, although the conclusions do not relate specifically to Teesside. Analysis of the data from the first eight sites in the survey, collected during 1999–2000, shows that 65 per cent. of arrestees provided a urine sample that tested positive for one or more illegal drug. The analysis also shows that up to 29 per cent. of arrestees tested positive for opiates (including heroin) and/or cocaine (including crack).

  As a guide to the proportion of crime that is drug-related, analysis of the NEW-ADAM self-report data indicates that while only 21 per cent. of non-drug using arrestees reporting having previously offended in the past 12 months, this figure rises to 75 per cent. for those arrestees who use heroin and/or cocaine/crack. Moreover, while users of both heroin and cocaine/crack represented just under one quarter of all arrestees interviewed, they were responsible for more than three-fifths of all the illegal income reported.
  639W
  In support of this, 55 per cent. of arrestees who reported using one or more drugs in the last 12 months and committing one of more acquisitive crimes, acknowledged a link between their drug use and their offending behaviour. This proportion rose to 78 per cent. for arrestees who said they had used heroin and cocaine/crack.

  Family Support Grant
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money his Department has allocated to awards for family support grant; under what headings applications are being considered; how much funding is allocated under each heading; and if he will make a statement. [87143]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Family Support Grant is currently worth a total of £5.8 million a year. The Home Office has allocated up to £1.265 million to make new awards under the Family Support Grant starting in 2003–04. As in previous years there are three strands.

  The first strand is for national, regional or local voluntary organisations seeking to deliver innovative projects for parenting support—£440,000 has been allocated.

  The second strand is for national, regional or local voluntary organisations wishing to further develop and replicate previously successfully completed Family Support Grant funded work. It must focus on either fathering and/or parenting teenagers as funded in the first or second Family Support Grant rounds (1999–2000 and 2000–2001). £440,000 has been allocated.

  The third strand is for voluntary organisations for work with black and minority ethnic parents specifically to help them with their parenting skills. To be eligible the work must focus either on supporting refugee parents with their parenting and/or supporting parents who are struggling with parenting their teenagers. £385,000 has been allocated. In addition, up to £55,000 will be available to provide extra support to the newly funded organisations given that they are likely to be less experienced than those applying for the other two strands, and to enable shared learning.

  Each grant is worth up to £55,000 per annum for up to three years. This is a rise from the previous annual maximum of £50,000.

  The closing date for applications was 10 December. These are still being processed but there are approximately 300 applications, with the majority applying under the first and third strands. Decisions will be announced no later than mid March 2003 and if it is possible to notify applicants any earlier this will be done.

  The Family Support Grant also give score funding to Parentline Plus for its helpline; to the National Family Parenting Institute and to Home Start.

  The balance is for continuation funding for those organisations funded from the previous two rounds.

  Fireworks
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the anti-social behaviour associated with fireworks around 5 November this year. [83634]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]We are concerned about the nuisance and noise associated with fireworks. We have set up a monitoring exercise involving nine Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) to focus on best practice and to identify clearly the number and scale of the problem caused. This commenced on 23 October and will run until 15 January in order to take into account 5 November, New Year and other festivals. At the end of the exercise we will analyse the findings and place the results in the Library.

  Hard Case Support
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications he has received for hard case support over the last year; and how many have been successful. [86565]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available.

  Hornchurch
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Hornchurch constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [85081]

  Mr. Denham
  Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office annual reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 2001–2002, is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Hornchurch constituency or the immediate locality, as follows:
  Hornchurch benefits from projects which cover the wider area of Havering. The Havering Drugs Action Team is receiving £566,000 this year from a combined Home Office and Department of Health fund to develop and extend local drug treatment services. These funds will rise to £924,000 by 2005–06. Separately the current "Don't Buy Crime" campaign is raising awareness about purchasing stolen goods. This is part of the Home Office's "Safer Communities Initiative" under which £72,565 has been allocated to Havering for 2002–03.
  One recent initiative specifically affected Hornchurch: a London Regional Transport close circuit television (CCTV) scheme called the "Hewkeye Project", in which CCTV cameras and associated equipment provided coverage of a station car park. The project was a joint venture involving London Regional Transport, the British Transport Police and local partnerships. Forty-six other car parks in the London region also benefited from the scheme. The package is intended to reduce incidences of motor vehicle crime and the fear of crime for car park users and passengers.

  641W
  Essex was one of 27 police forces which successfully bid for funding for community support officers and in the year ending 31 March 2002 the Metropolitan Police Force strength had increased by over 1,300 officers compared with the previous 12 months.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Hornchurch to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  The level of Class A drug abuse by under 25-year-olds has stabilised and we are increasing the emphasis on treatment as a response to drug abuse generally;
  The interim target of 60 per cent. of all asylum applications being decided within two months has been met;
  Vehicle crime is down 8.8 per cent. from levels in 1998–09.
  There have been no escapes by Category A prisoners since 1995.
  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk

  Immigration
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons will be admitted to the UK under the special arrangements covering people previously accommodated at Sangatte. [87508]

  Beverley Hughes
  1,018 people have been brought to the United Kingdom under these arrangements and Sangatte is now empty.

  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits(a) have been and (b) will be issued to persons formerly accommodated at Sangatte and admitted to the UK under the recently negotiated special arrangements. [87509]

  Beverley Hughes
  Iraqis from Sangatte have been given a visa which permits them to work; 899 of these visas had been issued.

  Iraqi Asylum Seekers
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account he has taken of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office document "Saddam Hussein: Crimes and human rights abuses" in determining asylum applications from Iraqis; how many Iraqis await determination of their applications; what the(a) current average wait and (b) 20 longest waits for determination for present Iraqi asylum seekers; how many such asylum seekers are (i) in jail and (ii) in detention; how long each one has been there; whether he plans to change his Department's policy as a consequence of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report; and if he will make a statement. [86230]

  Beverley Hughes
  As with all asylum applications, Iraqi cases are considered on their individual merits under the terms of the 1951 UN Convention, and in the light of up to date information from a wide variety of sources, including information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  We continue to monitor events in Iraq closely. We will keep under review our handling of asylum applications in light of any changes in country conditions.
  642W
  Information on how many Iraqis are awaiting determination of their asylum applications, and the length of time they have been outstanding, is only available by examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Published statistics on immigration detention are issued on a quarterly basis. The latest available data on asylum seekers held in detention in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers are for 28 September 2002 and are as follows:

  Iraqi asylum seekers held solely under Immigration Act powers on 28 September 2002

  By place of detention

  Removal centres/immigration short term holding facilities

  10

  Prison Service establishments

  5

  Total

  10

  By length of detention

  Less than 1 month

  10

  Between 1 and 6 months

  5

  Total

  10

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five with * denoting 1 or 2. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  1. Persons detained solely under Immigration Act powers who are recorded as having sought asylum at some stage.

  2. Length of detention information relates to current period of detention; where persons have been transferred to and subsequently from Oakington Reception Centre, excludes time in detention prior to the transfer from Oakington.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 28 and 29 November; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [85856]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  My hon. Friend (Lord Filkin) and the noble Baroness Scotland of Asthal represented the United Kingdom at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in Brussels on 28–29 November.

  The A points were approved as in document PTS A 62 (14754/02) (a copy of which has been placed in the Library) with the exception of item 16. Ministers signed the Protocol to the Europol Convention agreed at item 4.

  The presidency advised on progress in implementing the Seville European Council conclusions, presenting a report on action taken to combat illegal immigration and human trafficking and on management of the external border. Member states urged the Commission to produce its overdue report on financial resources for repatriation, border management and migration projects. The Commission explained that the financial resources had to come from the current financial perspective, which required re-evaluation of existing commitments within the JHA and External Relations budgets, but that national expenditure would need to remain a significant source of funding.

  The Council adopted negotiating mandates for the Commission to pursue readmission agreements with Turkey, Albania, Algeria and China. The aim will be to agree arrangements with those countries for the return

  643W
  of their nationals who have entered the EU illegally. Over lunch, Ministers also discussed the application of the readmission provision in the Cotonou agreement. This would allow member states to approach African Caribbean and Pacific areas countries bilaterally to ask them to take back their nationals.

  The Council discussed the time limits to be applied for determining responsibility for an asylum claim in the regulation establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the member states by a third-country national (Dublin II). The presidency concluded that member states would have one week in which to accept or reject a compromise package comprising a time limit of one year for responsibility on the basis of illegal entry across the external frontier and five months for tolerated illegal presence in a member state. The Council agreed that the latter criterion should apply only to asylum seekers illegally present after the entry into force of the regulation. The Council also agreed to a minutes statement addressing the possible future inclusion in the regulation's scope of applicants for subsidiary protection.

  The Council held a brief discussion of Articles 1–19 of the Council directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection concerning the definition of a refugee and those entitled to subsidiary protection. However, two member states maintained reservations on the text.

  With the exception of one member state, Ministers agreed to amend Article 16 of the directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in member states in line with a United Kingdom proposal allowing for the refusal of support to asylum seekers making late applications. The one other remaining reserve on the text was lifted following a change to Article 11 concerning access to labour markets.

  The Council also agreed a statement declaring the European Free Trade Areas and Accession States (from the date of signature of the Accession Treaties) to be safe third countries for the purposes of asylum.

  The Council adopted a Community programme on the return of third country nationals to source countries and a programme intended specifically to address returns to Afghanistan. The Council also took note of Council conclusions agreed by the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 18 November concerning the integration of immigration policy into the Union's relations with third countries. Lord Filkin welcomed the conclusions as a positive first step but called for the monitoring of returns projects to ensure that they were effective.

  The Council agreed a package of provisions on child abduction for inclusion in the regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility. These were based on retention of existing Hague Convention arrangements with additional rules where a non-return order has been
  644W
  issued under the 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction. In order to encourage other member states to accept the compromise, Baroness Scotland proposed the creation of a strict timetable to initiate custody proceedings in the home court following a non-return order.

  Consequently, member states were also able to agree the Council Decision authorising the member states, in the interest of the European Community, to sign the Convention on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and co-operation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children.

  The Council agreed to revise the negotiating mandated for the draft agreement between the European Union and United States of America on judicial co-operation in criminal matters and on extradition.

  The Council discussed a presidency compromise package intended to address member states' outstanding reservations on the proposed offences in the Framework Decision combating racism and xenophobia. Lord Filkin, with four other member states, agreed that proposal struck the right balance between punishing racist and xenophobic acts and protecting freedom of expression. However, the remaining member states were divided in either expressing fundamental problems with the scope of the instrument or wanting to go substantially further, in particular in reducing the threshold for criminal liability.

  The presidency sought agreement to its compromise proposal regarding the abolition of the dual criminality requirement in the Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. This would enable member states to maintain dual criminality for a transitional period of up to five years. Although this was acceptable to the majority of delegations, including the United Kingdom, five member states maintained reservations.

  Two member states maintained reservations on the proposed penalties for trafficking in small quantities of drugs in the Framework Decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of drug trafficking.

  Two member states also maintained reservations on the scope of the offences of active and passive corruption in Article 2 of the Framework Decision on combating corruption in the private sector.

  Under Any Other Business the presidency emphasised the importance of securing an agreement between Europol and the United States of America on the exchange of personal data. The Commission also asked the Council to consider its proposal for a Council Decision on financing certain activities carried out by Europol to fight terrorism. The latter point would be considered at the December JHA Council.

  National Alert Rating
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the national alert rating for each public sector was in each year since 1997. [85642]
  645W
  Mr. Denham
  For reasons of security it would not be appropriate to comment on the states of alert operated across the various sectors.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total budget of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03. [84931]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]On current estimates the Home Office expects to spend £14,920,000 on official travel in 2002–03. The estimated expenditure of the agencies is as follows:

  £

  Forensic Science Service

  1,949,000

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  9,640,000

  United Kingdom Passport Service

  1,327,000

  The above figures include the cost of subsistence allowance which cannot be identified separately without disproportionate cost. The Prison Service figure includes the travel and subsistence cost of prison staff

  Police transfers

  Strength at 31 March 1999

  Transfers from force

  1999–2000 Transfers out as proportion of strength (percentage)

  Transfers to force

  Net transfers

  Avon and Somerset

  2,999

  16

  0.53

  29

  13

  Bedfordshire

  1,041

  5

  0.48

  1

  -4

  Cambridgeshire

  1,274

  6

  0.47

  12

  6

  Cheshire

  2,071

  4

  0.19

  12

  8

  City of London

  778

  13

  1.67

  0

  -13

  Cleveland

  1,416

  1

  0.07

  9

  8

  Cumbria

  1,126

  6

  0.53

  4

  -2

  Derbyshire

  1,759

  6

  0.34

  10

  4

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,887

  8

  0.28

  19

  11

  Dorset

  1,279

  3

  0.23

  54

  51

  Durham

  1,568

  3

  0.19

  6

  3

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,026

  5

  0.49

  15

  10

  Essex1

  2,891

  10

  0.35

  23

  13

  Gloucestershire

  1,104

  3

  0.27

  13

  10

  Greater Manchester

  6,810

  15

  0.22

  25

  10

  Gwent

  1,247

  3

  0.24

  23

  20

  Hampshire

  3,473

  20

  0.58

  31

  11

  Hertfordshire1

  1,724

  23

  1.33

  25

  2

  Humberside

  1,974

  5

  0.25

  15

  10

  Kent

  3,201

  12

  0.37

  18

  6

  Lancashire

  3,245

  7

  0.22

  7

  0

  Leicestershire

  1,993

  13

  0.65

  8

  -5

  Lincolnshire

  1,140

  5

  0.44

  14

  9

  Merseyside

  4,211

  10

  0.24

  9

  -1

  Metropolitan Police1

  26,073

  244

  0.94

  36

  -208

  Norfolk

  1,381

  2

  0.14

  13

  11

  Northamptonshire

  1,137

  2

  0.18

  3

  1

  Northumbria

  3,840

  9

  0.23

  7

  -2

  North Wales

  1,391

  5

  0.36

  14

  9

  North Yorkshire

  1,337

  5

  0.37

  10

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  2,225

  10

  0.45

  9

  -1

  South Wales

  2,981

  11

  0.37

  7

  -4

  South Yorkshire

  3,168

  8

  0.25

  22

  14

  Staffordshire

  2,238

  2

  0.09

  2

  0

  Suffolk

  1,190

  5

  0.42

  2

  -3

  Surrey1

  1,662

  18

  1.08

  43

  25

  Sussex

  2,847

  21

  0.74

  21

  0

  646W
  escorting prisoners. The cost of escorts for asylum seekers is not included as they are provided by the private sector.

  Police Appointments
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recruitment and deployment practices exist for the appointment of a police borough commander in a London Borough; and if he will make a statement. [85678]

  Mr. Denham
  The appointment of a police borough commander to a London borough is an operational policing matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Police Transfers
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of, and how many, police officers transferred out of each police force in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [83370]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]The tables show (i) the numbers of officers transferred from each force, (ii) the proportion of force strength represented by these transfers, (iii) the numbers of officers transferred in to each force and (iv) the net result for each force of this transfer activity in the last three years.
  647W

  1999–2000

  Police transfers

  Strength at 31 March 1999

  Transfers from force

  Transfers out us proportion of strength (percentage)

  Transfers to force

  Net transfers

  Thames Valley

  3,748

  26

  0.69

  1

  -25

  Warwickshire

  908

  2

  0.22

  3

  1

  West Mercia

  2,025

  6

  0.30

  2

  -4

  West Midlands

  7,321

  42

  0.57

  26

  -16

  West Yorkshire

  4,982

  15

  0.30

  0

  -15

  Wiltshire

  1,151

  7

  0.61

  13

  6

  2000–01

  Police transfers

  Strength at 31 March 2000

  Transfers from force

  Transfers out as proportion of strength (percentage)

  Transfers to force

  Net transfers

  Avon and Somerset

  2,934

  25

  0.85

  48

  23

  Bedfordshire

  1,028

  21

  2.04

  9

  -12

  Cambridgeshire

  1,237

  12

  0.97

  15

  3

  Cheshire

  2,011

  6

  0.30

  8

  2

  City of London

  732

  18

  2.46

  2

  -16

  Cleveland

  1,404

  4

  0.28

  0

  -4

  Cumbria

  1,084

  10

  0.92

  9

  -1

  Derbyshire

  1,777

  5

  0.28

  3

  -2

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,841

  7

  0.25

  62

  55

  Dorset

  1,306

  9

  0.69

  36

  27

  Durham

  1,558

  5

  0.32

  14

  9

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,040

  9

  0.87

  13

  4

  Essex1

  2,806

  25

  0.89

  50

  25

  Gloucestershire

  1,114

  6

  0.54

  14

  8

  Greater Manchester

  6,795

  28

  0.41

  48

  20

  Gwent

  1,264

  5

  0.40

  13

  8

  Hampshire

  3,419

  24

  0.70

  41

  17

  Hertfordshire1

  1,767

  43

  2.43

  31

  -12

  Humberside

  1,932

  18

  0.92

  10

  -8

  Kent

  3,204

  26

  0.81

  30

  4

  Lancashire

  3,179

  7

  0.22

  13

  6

  Leicestershire

  1,993

  27

  1.35

  34

  7

  Lincolnshire

  1,115

  6

  0.54

  32

  26

  Merseyside

  4,085

  14

  0.34

  18

  4

  Metropolitan Police1

  25,485

  382

  1.50

  72

  -310

  Norfolk

  1,381

  6

  0.43

  28

  22

  Northamptonshire

  1,117

  10

  0.90

  16

  6

  Northumbria

  3,788

  5

  0.13

  9

  4

  North Wales

  1,403

  2

  0.14

  19

  17

  North Yorkshire

  1,283

  5

  0.39

  36

  31

  Nottinghamshire

  2,204

  6

  0.27

  33

  27

  South Wales

  2,926

  3

  0.10

  60

  57

  South Yorkshire

  3,163

  4

  0.13

  21

  17

  Staffordshire

  2,170

  9

  0.41

  2

  -7

  Suffolk

  1,145

  11

  0.96

  8

  -3

  Surrey1

  1,785

  171

  9.59

  303

  132

  Sussex

  2,822

  31

  1.10

  23

  -8

  Thames Valley

  3,740

  80

  2.14

  9

  -71

  Warwickshire

  900

  8

  0.89

  2

  -6

  West Mercia

  1,887

  6

  0.32

  18

  12

  West Midlands

  7,194

  59

  0.82

  22

  -37

  West Yorkshire

  4,822

  19

  0.39

  21

  2

  Wiltshire

  1,118

  12

  1.07

  15

  3

  2001–02

  Strength at 31 March 2001

  Transfers from force

  Transfers out as proportion of strength (percentage)

  Transfers to force

  Net transfers

  Avon and Somerset

  2,994

  19

  0.63

  44

  25

  Bedfordshire

  1,036

  51

  4.92

  6

  -45

  Cambridgeshire

  1,296

  26

  2.01

  27

  1

  Cheshire

  2,002

  18

  0.90

  8

  -10

  City of London

  703

  11

  1.54

  42

  31

  648W 649W

  2001–02

  Strength at 31 March 2001

  Transfers from force

  Transfers out as proportion of strength (percentage)

  Transfers to force

  Net transfers

  Cleveland

  1,407

  4

  0.28

  17

  13

  Cumbria

  1,048

  18

  1.72

  29

  11

  Derbyshire

  1,823

  6

  0.33

  18

  12

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,934

  13

  0.44

  87

  74

  Dorset

  1,354

  20

  1.46

  36

  16

  Durham

  1,595

  10

  0.63

  10

  0

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,055

  4

  0.38

  23

  19

  Essex1

  2,897

  56

  1.93

  50

  -6

  Gloucestershire

  1,173

  20

  1.71

  18

  -2

  Greater Manchester

  6,909

  39

  0.56

  64

  25

  Gwent

  1,274

  8

  0.63

  15

  7

  Hampshire

  3,438

  61

  1.77

  54

  -7

  Hertfordshire1

  1,922

  59

  3.07

  54

  -5

  Humberside

  1,917

  12

  0.63

  24

  12

  Kent

  3,319

  28

  0.84

  24

  -4

  Lancashire

  3,255

  36

  1.11

  28

  -8

  Leicestershire

  2,032

  37

  1.82

  13

  -24

  Lincolnshire

  1,202

  6

  0.50

  8

  2

  Merseyside

  4,081

  8

  0.20

  17

  9

  Metropolitan Police1

  24,878

  436

  1.75

  196

  -240

  Norfolk

  1,420

  9

  0.63

  33

  24

  Northamptonshire

  1,157

  13

  1.12

  29

  16

  Northumbria

  3,857

  26

  0.67

  29

  3

  North Wales

  1,444

  0

  0.00

  32

  32

  North Yorkshire

  1,305

  4

  0.31

  80

  76

  Nottinghamshire

  2,275

  14

  0.62

  42

  28

  South Wales

  3,154

  6

  0.19

  12

  6

  South Yorkshire

  3,197

  12

  0.38

  26

  14

  Staffordshire

  2,129

  22

  1.02

  35

  13

  Suffolk

  1,133

  3

  0.26

  21

  18

  Surrey1

  2,066

  246

  11.93

  55

  -191

  Sussex

  2,855

  34

  1.19

  29

  -5

  Thames Valley

  3,703

  72

  1.94

  13

  -59

  Warwickshire

  926

  17

  1.84

  27

  10

  West Mercia

  1,951

  10

  0.51

  65

  55

  West Midlands

  7,423

  132

  1.77

  41

  -91

  West Yorkshire

  4,815

  47

  0.98

  22

  -25

  Wiltshire

  1,120

  10

  0.89

  22

  12

  1 As of April 2000, the Metropolitan Police force was reduced in size by a transfer of responsibility for policing some areas to the surrounding forces of Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex. The effects of the Metropolitan Police boundary changes on 1 April 2000 were incorporated into the police funding formula and the overall transfer between the forces was in terms of financial resources, not of officers.

  Prince of Wales (Gifts)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what powers, and on whose authority, the security services intercepted the conversation between Harold Brown and Jan Havlik about the model of an Arabian ship given as a wedding present to their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales by the Emir of Bahrain; and if he will make a statement. [86184]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: The policy of successive governments is to neither confirm nor deny allegations as to whether a particular individual is or has been subject to an interception warrant under part I of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

  Social Security Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that the question and advice about social security benefits that appears on the back of ordinary death certificates is printed on the back of death certificates provided by coroners' offices. [86603]
  650W
  Hilary Henn
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: We have been considering with the Department for Work and Pensions how best to ensure that timely information about such benefits can be drawn to the attention of the bereaved. I am afraid that coroners' interim certificates of the fact of death are not suitablefor this ppurpose, but I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  States of Alert
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the states of alert which are operated by government establishments, and the criteria which apply in each case. [86447]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 106W.

  Truant Children
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times in each month since
  651W
  its introduction police have used their powers under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to remove truant children to designated places. [86180]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The information is not held centrally. Police forces are not required to inform the Secretary of State when using the powers provided by section 16 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to pick up truants in public places and return them to school or other designated place.

  We have encouraged the police and local education authorities to undertake truancy sweeps on a regular basis, based on an assessment of local truancy problems. We are also making use of truancy sweeps as part of our efforts to tackle street crime. A co-ordinated programme of truancy sweeps during May this year in the street crime areas saw over 12,000 pupils stopped in 900 sweeps.

  Drugs Strategy
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which targets have been(a) abandoned, (b) retained and (c) newly adopted following the updated drug strategy; and how progress on targets is to be monitored and reported. [86536]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We have not abandoned our targets. Following a review of the Drug Strategy, we concluded that the targets covered the right areas but, as the Home Affairs Committee noted, in some cases they were aspirational. We need targets which are challenging but achievable and which drive an emphasis on tackling problematic drug use and on reducing the harm caused by drugs.

  The new targets are set out in the list. The targets are monitored and delivered by Departments working closely together, although each target has a lead Department which co-ordinates delivery. These are indicated in the list.

  We will continue to report publicly on our progress through general reports on the strategy and through specific statistical bulletins. As with previous targets, more detailed information on how the new targets will be measured will be set out in technical notes available on departmental websites. The Department of Health Technical Note is already on their website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/psa/index.htm. Other technical notes will be published shortly.

  Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets from the previous spending review (SR2000) and the corresponding new targets from this latest spending review (SR2002).
  Young People (Home Office lead)
  SR2000 target: reduce the proportion of people under the age of 25 reporting the use of class A drugs 25 per cent. by 2005 and by 50 per cent. by 2008
  New target: reduce the use of class A drugs and the frequent use of any illicit drug among all young people under the age of 25 especially by the most vulnerable young people
  652W
  Tackling Supply: (Her Majesty's Customs and Excise lead)
  SR2000 target: reduce the availability of Class A drugs by 25 per cent. by 2005 and 50 per cent. by 2008
  New target: reduce the availability of illegal drugs by increasing: the proportion of heroin and cocaine targeted on the UK which is taken out;
  the disruption /dismantling of those criminal groups responsible for supplying substantial quantities of class A drugs to the UK market; and
  the recovery of drug-related criminal assets.
  And the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has also set a target to:
  Contribute to the reduction of opium production in Afghanistan, with poppy cultivation reduced by 70 per cent. within five years and elimination within 10 years.
  Drug related crime: (Home Office lead)
  SR2000 target: reduce the levels of repeat offending among drug misusing offenders by 25 per cent. by 2005 and 50 per cent. by 2008
  New target: reduce drug-related crime, including as measured by the proportion of offenders testing positive for arrest
  Treatment: (Department of Health lead)
  SR2000 Target: Increase the participation of problem drug users in drug treatment programmes by 55 per cent. by 2004 and by 100 per cent. by 2008.
  New target: Increase the participation of problem drug users in drug treatment programmes by 55 per cent. by 2004 and by 100 per cent. by 2008, and increase year on year the proportion of users successfully sustaining or completing treatment programmes.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places are available on government—unded drug rehabilitation programmes; and how many will be made available as a result of the Updated Drugs Strategy. [86539]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Since 1997 the number of treatment services in England has increased by a third to 715. Under the Updated Drug Strategy, the National Treatment Agency will continue to work to increase the number and capacity of all treatment services to meet the target of doubling the number of people in structured treatment to 200,000 a year by 2008.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what part the concept of indefinite remedial care and harm minimisation for individuals using illegal drugs or prescribed substitutes will play as an alternative to rehabilitation and abstinence under the Updated Drug Strategy. [86540]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The primary goal of all treatment is abstinence while recognising that some drug misusers may require longer-term support to achieve this. Approaches, such as prescribing methadone or diamorphine as a substitute for illicit opiates, have proven benefits for certain individuals and for society, particularly in terms of stabilising the individual, and reducing injecting behaviour and criminal activity.

  The Updated Drug Strategy also contains as a key element the target of reducing drug-related deaths by 20 per cent. by 2004—often the final tragic result of years of risky patterns of use and poor health. Improving the basic health of drug misusers benefits them and the wider community. Programmes will focus on the key risks to health, reaching out on to the street and other places to target drug misusers in crisis.
  653W
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what breakdowns are available for each of the four headings in the direct annual expenditure table on page 64 of the Updated Drugs Strategy document. [86543]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The following initiatives will be among those funded from the additional expenditure being injected into the Drug Strategy.Drug Treatment
  An expansion of the volume and range of treatment provision including treatment in adult Prisons.
  Protecting Young People
  The Positive Futures programme;
  Outreach workers for young people;
  Expansion of treatment and care both in the community and in custodial facilities;
  Arrest referral and community treatment for young people;
  Community sentences for young people; and
  Drug workers in juvenile custodial facilities.
  Safeguarding communities.
  The expansion of drug testing for those arrested for
  certain offences;
  The introduction, on a pilot basis, of a presumption against bail for those arrested for certain offences who test positive and decline treatment; The expansion of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders and the introduction of generic community sentences; Consolidation and improvements in the quality of the Arrest Referral initiative; and
  The Introduction of a comprehensive programme of throughcare and aftercare for those in and leaving treatment, including those leaving prison.
  The amount spent on each initiative may vary from year to year as an initiative is rolled out and as the actual as opposed to estimated costs are established.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the access to drug detox and rehab programmes of drug addicts(a) within the criminal justice system and (b) outside of it; and if it is an aim of the Updated Drug Strategy to achieve equality of access. [86544]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Treatment works. It leads to reductions in both drug use and offending. We want to ensure that all those in need of treatment have access to it, whether it is through the community or criminal justice system.

  The Updated Drug Strategy focuses on getting problematic drug users into treatment. Filling gaps in provision, reducing waiting times and using every opportunity presented by the criminal justice system will ensure this target is met.

  Mr. Gary Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government has to monitor average persistence of prescribed(a) diamorphine and (b) methadone use per individual under programmes supported by the Updated Drug Strategy. [86545]

  Mr. Streeter
  Under the Updated Drug Strategy, the treatment target has been extended not only to monitor the n umber of drug misusers entering treatment services, but also to monitor the proportion of users successfully sustaining or completing treatment programmes. This 654W
  will include drug misusers on diamorphine or methadone prescribing programmes. Performance against the treatment target will be monitored by the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System.

TRANSPORT

  Ecological Cars
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why ecological cars licensed prior to March 2001 do not benefit from the lower road tax applicable to vehicles in this class registered post March 2001. [87114]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In order to introduce a VED scheme based on carbon dioxide CO2 emissions (in turn, based on information obtained during the EU Type Approval test) it was necessary to develop systems to enable emissions information to be held on the vehicle register at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). It was also necessary to allow time for motor manufacturers and dealers to make changes to their IT systems to accommodate the new system. Although CO2 information has been available for most new cars registered since 1997, it would have been major and very costly bureaucratic exercise to collect CO2 information retrospectively.

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer took these factors into account in setting 1 March 2001 as the date when the scheme should take effect. Whatever date the Chancellor had set, apparently identical vehicles registered either side of that date might have paid different VED rates.

  A further reason for choosing the date took into account the effect on the second hand car market. The March 2001 date coincided with the introduction of the "Y" registration prefix letter and accordingly would make for a clear indication of what vehicles were, and which were not taxed under the CO2 scheme. That was particularly important as we expect and intend that the scheme to have a strong impact on incentives in the second hand market.

  Since CO2 emissions data are not readily available for vehicles registered before 1 March 2001 these cars are taxed on the basis of their engine capacity as a rough indicator of CO2 emissions. There are now around 9 million cars in the lower band of the engine size scheme (set at under 1549 cc) benefiting from a rate of £105, a reduction of £55 per annum on the standard rate.

  10-year Transport Plan
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce his investment decisions on projects envisaged under the 10 year transport plan; if he will publish a timetable for the implementation of each project; and what proportion of the funding under the 10 year transport plan will be spent on subsidised bus services. [R] [85161]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The plan provides an overarching funding framework and it included some illustrative outputs to show the scale and type of projects that could be delivered. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
  655W
  for Transport made a further announcement about transport investment to the House on 10 December, 2002.

  A303 (Construction Works)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the timetable is for construction of works on the A303 near Stonehenge; what the cost is; what works are proposed; what changes there have been to the original proposals; what assessment has been carried out of the impact of the works; what representations have been received; and what discussions have taken place. [86093]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The proposed timetable for the A303 Stonehenge Improvement is:

  Publication of draft orders: spring 2003

  Public inquiry : late autumn 2003

  Decision: late 2004

  Start of works (subject to the above) 2005

  Completion 2008

  The current estimated cost of the scheme is £183 million (excluding development and land costs.) The scheme is a 10.8 km long improvement of the A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down, upgrading the single carriageway to a dual carriageway, providing a bypass for the village of Winterbourne Stoke and taking the road in a tunnel past Stonehenge. The scheme estimate is based on a 2.1 km bored tunnel.

  The assessment of the impact of the works is ongoing. The details in the form of an environmental statement will be published in the spring. There will be a public exhibition and anyone will be able to comment, support or object to the proposals.

  To date there have been a variety of views expressed, particularly on the type and length of tunnel that needs to be built. There have also been numerous discussions with partners and stakeholders over the planning and development of the scheme. All those views are being taken into consideration.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to require the last registered keeper of a motor vehicle to pay the costs of dealing with its abandonment. [87493]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Abandoning a motor vehicle is currently a criminal offence attracting a maximum penalty of a fine of £2,500, three months' imprisonment or both. When a vehicle is abandoned, the local authority that deals with it has the power to recover the cost of removing and disposing of the vehicle from the keeper.

  Local authorities can seek information about the keeper of the vehicle from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). The DVLA has recently made a successful bid under the Invest to Save Programme to fund an electronic link to local authorities to enable them to seek that information
  656W
  more quickly and efficiently. That link is currently being rolled out to local authorities, following a successful pilot in Sussex.

  The 2002 Finance Act contained outline powers to establish a system of continuous registration, which will ensure that keepers of vehicles remain responsible for licensing that vehicle until such time that DVLA has been properly notified of its disposal. This will ensure that it is much more difficult for keepers of vehicles to evade their responsibilities to dispose of vehicles properly, or to evade meeting local authority costs when a vehicle is abandoned. We are currently considering how this legislation will be implemented and will make an announcement in due course.

  Air Traffic (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many aircraft departed from(a) Edinburgh, (b) Glasgow and (c) Prestwick airports in each month since January 2000, broken down by aircraft type. [87167]

  Mr. Jamieson
  An analysis by aircraft type is not readily available. Information for all aircraft is as follows:

  Air transport movements (aircraft landing or take-offs)1

  Thousand

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow

  Prestwick

  2000

  January

  6.8

  6.5

  0.9

  February

  7.0

  6.6

  0.9

  March

  7.7

  7.3

  0.9

  April

  6.8

  6.9

  0.8

  May

  7.4

  8.0

  1.0

  June

  7.6

  8.2

  1.0

  July

  7.9

  8.7

  1.1

  August

  7.9

  8.4

  1.0

  September

  7.6

  8.1

  1.0

  October

  7.9

  8.1

  1.0

  November

  7.8

  7.3

  1.0

  December

  6.8

  6.4

  1.0

  2001

  January

  7.5

  7.2

  1.0

  February

  7.1

  6.6

  0.9

  March

  8.2

  7.6

  1.1

  April

  8.0

  7.3

  1.1

  May

  8.7

  8.5

  1.1

  June

  8.5

  8.2

  1.1

  July

  8.8

  8.6

  1.2

  August

  8.7

  8.4

  1.2

  September

  8.5

  8.3

  1.2

  October

  9.3

  8.7

  1.2

  November

  8.5

  7.0

  1.2

  December

  7.2

  6.2

  1.1

  2002

  January

  8.1

  6.6

  1.1

  February

  8.0

  6.0

  1.1

  March

  8.7

  6.6

  1.3

  April

  8.7

  6.9

  1.2

  May

  9.3

  7.9

  1.3

  June

  8.6

  7.8

  1.3

  July

  9.5

  8.7

  1.4

  August

  9.1

  8.2

  1.3

  September

  8.9

  7.8

  1.3

  1 Landings or take-offs of aircraft engaged on the transport of passengers, cargo or mail on commercial terms. Information about departures only is not available.

  Air Transport
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on 9 December 2002,Official Report, columns 32–33W, on the future development of air transport, how many (a) questionnaires and (b) written letters were received in response to the consultation from Scotland by (i) 30 November and (ii) 10 December. [87168]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The breakdown of responses received in response to the consultation about Scotland and logged up until the 30 November and 10 December.

  30 November

  10 December

  NOP questionnaires

  790

  860

  Letters

  61

  68

  E-mails

  80

  98

  Total

  931

  1,026

  Aircraft Emissions
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much carbon dioxide is produced on average by an individual aircraft per mile travelled, broken down by aircraft type. [87185]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is not readily available. Some information on CO2 emissions for different aircraft types, based on British Airways fleet of 1997–98, is given on pages 285–6 of Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1999.

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to which bodies his Department makes appointments; how many members there are(a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) businessmen, (ii) businessmen in SMEs and (iii) businessmen in micro-businesses. [87399]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office today.

  Aviation Fuel (Taxation)
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase revenues from taxation of aviation fuel; and what recent studies he has commissioned of the effect on air passenger numbers. [86898]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Decisions on taxation are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As announced in his pre-Budget report, the Government will discuss with stakeholders the most effective economic instruments for ensuring that, where justified, the industry limits or reduces its contribution to climate change, local air quality and noise pollution. Any decision to tax fuel used for international aviation would be subject to international agreement under the Chicago Convention. And EU Directive 92/81/EEC, on 658W
  the harmonisation of the structures of excise duty on mineral oils, prohibits levying duty on most aviation fuel.

  An analysis published in Air Traffic Forecasts for the United Kingdom 2000 (May 2000, pages 19–20) indicates that an environmental fuel tax introduced in 2006 and increased by 10 percentage points every year for the next nine years until the tax were 100 per cent. of fuel costs in 2015 would reduce passenger demand by 10 per cent. by 2020.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many engagements were undertaken outside London(a) by him or his predecessor arid (b) by Ministers in his Department in January (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [87346]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) today.

  Railway Rolling Stock
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what types of, and how much, new rolling stock have been ordered in each year since 1994 by each train operating company. [86548]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table provides the required information.

  Year/TOC

  Volume (vehicles)

  Type

  1994

  Information not available

  —

  —

  1995

  Information not available

  —

  —

  1996

  Chiltern

  12

  DMU

  1997

  c2c

  184

  EMU

  Connex South Eastern

  120

  EMU

  Midland Mainline

  34

  DMU

  South West Trains

  120

  EMU

  1998

  Anglia

  24

  DMU

  Arriva Trains Northern

  48

  EMU

  Central Trains

  76

  DMU

  Chiltern

  8

  DMU

  Connex South Eastern

  90

  EMU

  First Great Western

  40

  DMU

  First North Western

  70

  DMU

  Catwick Express

  64

  EMU

  ScotRail

  45

  DMU

  ScotRail

  120

  EMU

  Virgin Cross Country

  352

  DEMU

  1999

  Chiltern

  10

  DMU

  First Great Western

  30

  DMU

  ScotRail

  33

  DMU

  Virgin West Coast

  477

  EMU

  659W

  Year/TOC

  Volume (vehicles)

  Type

  2000

  Arriva Trains Northern

  8

  EMU

  c2c

  112

  EMU

  Chiltern

  9

  DMU

  SWT

  16

  DMU

  2001

  Arriva Trains Northern

  8

  EMU

  Chiltern

  7

  DMU

  First Great Eastern

  84

  EMU

  Midland Mainline

  10

  DMU

  South Central

  240

  EMU

  South West Trains

  785

  EMU

  2002

  Anglia

  8

  DMU

  Connex South Eastern

  408

  EMU

  Midland Mainline

  127

  DMU

  South Central

  460

  EMU

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many railway rolling stock leases involving Mark 1 passenger carriages are in existence; and in respect of each lease, what is(a) the name of the rolling stock company owning the vehicles and (b) the name of the train operating company leasing them; how many Mark 1 vehicles are covered by that lease; and what is the date to which the train operating company is committed to leasing the vehicles; [86549]

  (2) how many railway rolling stock leases involving Mark 1 passenger carriages there are; and in respect of each lease, which rolling stock company owns the vehicles; which train operating company leases them; how many Mark 1 vehicles are covered by that lease; and what the date is to which the train operating company is committed to leasing the vehicles. [86552]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are 1,741 Mark 1 vehicles leased through 19 leases as follows:

  ROSCO: Angel Trains

  Number of vehicles: 600

  Number of leases: 5

  Allocation to lessee: South West Trains (0), South Central Trains (324), Connex South Eastern (276)

  ROSCO: Portebrook Leasing

  Number of vehicles: 621

  Number of leases: 10

  Allocation to lessee: South West Trains (195), South Central Trains (224), Connex South Eastern (202)

  ROSCO: HSBC

  Number of Vehicles: 520

  Number of leases: 4

  Allocation to lessee: South West Trains (380), South Central Trains (60), Connex South Eastern (80)

  The dates to which train operating companies are committed to leasing the vehicles are commercially confidential. However, in general terms, leases are being extended up to 31 December 2004 where necessary.

  Station Improvements (North Wales)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funds he has allocated for rail track and 660W
  station improvements in the last three years; and how much of this funding has been spent in North Wales. [87155]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Most public funds for railways are channelled through franchise support payments and cannot be allocated to specific expenditure. The Strategic Rail Authority has recently awarded over £2.4 million of funding from its Rail Passenger Partnership scheme for the 'Inform Cymru' project, providing customer information systems at stations along the Cambrian Line.

  Transport Police
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional funding has been made available since 11 September 2001 to the Chief Constable of British Transport Police to assist with the policing of the London Underground system. [87100]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Transport Police (BTP) Committee sets the budget for the force and the users of the BTP, such as London Underground, the train operating companies and Network Rail, provide the funding.

  The BTP have advised me that LUL's contribution to the BTP's budget in 2002–03 increased by 4.5 per cent. on the £30.9 million paid in 2001–02. It was announced on 1 July 2002, Official Report, column 115W, that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Home Secretary were providing £1.36 million of central funds to the BTP to support their participation in the Street Crime Initiative in London.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department has taken following the classification by the Office for National Statistics of major trust ports as public bodies. [87558]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have been working with the Office for National Statistics to identify the implications of this classification.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Bow Street Magistrates Court
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many hours the night session at Bow Street Magistrates' Court has operated; and how many cases have(a) been disposed of at first hearing and (b) been remanded over to a later date; [82096]

  (2) what the cost of operating the night session at Bow Street Magistrates' Court has been since its inception. [82097]

  Yvette Cooper
  The consultation report has just been received by ministers The Department is still completing its consideration and analysis of the findings and I hope to be able to write to the hon. Member with the figures requested shortly.

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to which bodies the Lord Chancellor's Department makes appointments; how many members there are(a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) businessmen, (ii) businessmen in SMEs and (iii) businessmen in micro-businesses. [87394]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office today.

  Boundaries Review
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on progress with the review of policies and processes to be adopted during the fifth general review of parliamentary constituencies and the review of Assembly electoral regions by the Boundary Commission for Wales. [85619]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  In carrying out the fifth general review of parliamentary constituencies and Assembly electoral regions in Wales, the Boundary Commission for Wales will publish provisional recommendations for groups of constituencies, following the rules on the redistribution of seats set out in Schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Provisional representations will be publicly available and interested parties will have one month from their publication in which to make representations.

  Local inquiries will be held if representations objecting to the proposals are received from an interested local authority or from a body of 100 or more electors. Inquiries will be conducted by Assistant Commissioners who will report to the Commission.

  Following receipt of reports, the Commission may decide to modify their revised recommendations before submitting their final proposals to my. right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the procedure for publication and inviting representation is again repeated. The report containing the Commission's final recommendations relates to all constituencies for Wales. No separate reports are submitted on any group of constituencies.

  Midnight Courts Pilot
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the midnight courts pilots in Manchester and London(a) commenced and (b) terminated; how many defendants were dealt with by each court; how many were sentenced on the evening of their appearance; and how many were remanded or bailed to a future date. [84300]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The consultation report has just been received by ministers. The Department is still completing its consideration and analysis of the findings and I hope to be able to write to the hon. Member with the figures requested shortly.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many engagements were undertaken outside London(a) by the Lord Chancellor and (b) by ministers in the Lord Chancellor's Department in January (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [87351]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  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 has 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.

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

  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.

HEALTH

  Prions
  Mr. Paul Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the risk of prions being transferred to meat for consumption(a) through blood and (b) by cutting equipment in abattoirs.[Transferred] [86071]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency advises me that the risk of prions being transferred to meat for consumption is currently estimated to be low. Specified risk material (SRM) controls cover those parts of animals considered most likely to harbour any transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) infectivity. The TSE regulations require that SRM neither enters the food chain nor comes into contact with any other animal material while in the slaughterhouse.

  Ongoing research underway includes investigation of different parts of a bovine animal beyond the currently defined SRM, and their response to an experimental challenge of BSE infected feed. This has not indicated to date that muscle tissue would itself become infected.

  The Agency is, in addition, undertaking research to evaluate the risk of prions being inadvertently transferred to meat at abattoirs, and possible ways through which risk can be reduced. This work in progress includes the examination of alternative cutting techniques for removal of spinal column. Results will be published once the work has been completed.

  EU Directives (Food Supplements)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the effects of the proposed EU directives on nutritional supplements and herbal remedies on(a) employment, (b) profit, (c) the number of small firms and (d) sales in the health

  663W
  food industry; what licence fees will be required for licensing each product; and what costs will be charged for testing each batch; [83841]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive on employment in the retail sector; what representations he has received on the issue from (a) the National Association of Health Stores, (b) Consumers for Health Choice, (c) Holland and Barrett Retail and (d) general nutrition centres; and if he will make a statement; [84213]

  (3) whom he has recently met from the natural health specialist retail sector and its consumers to discuss the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive; what views those individuals expressed to him; and what action he intends to take. [85086]

  Ms Blears
  Directive 2002/46/EC on Food Supplements was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 12 July 2002 and must be implemented into Member States' national legislation by 31 July 2003. The Food Standards Agency is currently consulting on draft implementing Regulations.

  In the short-term the EU food Supplements Directive is unlikely to have any effect upon employment, profit, the number of small firms or sales in the health food industry.

  In the longer-term, the impact of the directive will depend upon progress in adding vitamin and minerals and their sources to the lists of permitted nutrients in the Directive and upon developments in the setting of maximum limits for vitamins and minerals in food supplements. The Food Standards Agency is arguing the case for these maximum limits to be based on thorough scientific risk assessments so that there is no unnecessary restriction on the range of products that can be marketed.

  We have received a substantial number of representations from the National Association of Health Stores, Consumers for Health Choice, Holland and Barrett and General Nutrition Centres about the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products. The main thrust of the representations is to express strong opposition to, or serious concerns about, the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products and to express the view that the proposals would threaten viability, profits and jobs in the health food sector, particularly among independent stores. They fear that the Directive will lead to a substantial reduction in consumer choice and have expressed the view that the proposals are over-regulatory in terms of the scope of the Directive and the likely costs of meeting the various requirements. They indicate their belief that there is no evidence that products in question are unsafe or dangerous.

  Ministers have met representatives of the natural health specialist retail sector on a number of occasions. Most recently, my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (the Lord Hunt of Kingsheath) met a representative from the National Association of Health Stores on 21 November and representatives of Consumers for Health Choice, Holland and Barrett and General Nutrition Centres on 28 November. He also attended a Consumers for Health Choice Parliamentary reception on 4 December.
  664W
  The main regulatory burdens arising from the Directive, for example in relation to the cost of preparing dossiers and applying for registrations, would fall on manufacturers. At meetings with Ministers representatives from a wide range of United Kingdom trade associations representing manufacturers of herbal remedies and health foods have told us that that they believe the Directive will lead to greater consumer confidence and greater stability in the market and have requested that the Government should support the initiative while seeking to achieve maximum flexibility. The Herbal Forum which represents ten UK manufacturers' trade associations, covering the health food, herbal remedies, ethnic medicines and aromatherapy sectors wrote to my noble Friend on 18 November to support the case for appropriate regulation in order to ensure that the public is properly protected against inferior quality products which the current system can allow onto the market. The forum indicates that it appreciates the need for the Directive while identifying a number of areas of concern that it wishes to see addressed in European negotiations or in implementation at national level.

  The proposals remain under negotiation, and there are wide differences of view within the herbal sector about the possible impact of the Directive. It is therefore problematic to make reliable estimates of the kind requested in relation to the health food sector. However, our overall assessment remains that it will be possible for a very wide range of herbal remedies to be brought to the market under the Directive as currently drafted. We also share the view put to us by many people in the sector that the proposed systematic approach to standards of quality, safety and information are likely to enhance public confidence and the future prosperity of the sector. Moreover, if in negotiations we achieve the ability to extend the principle of simplified registration to an additional range of products which currently require a full marketing authorisation, in particular traditional herbal remedies with added nutrients, this is likely to lead to increased opportunities for both manufacturers and retailers and a significant expansion in consumer choice as compared with the current position in the UK.

  We intend to continue to engage positively in the ongoing European negotiations on the Directive, seeking to ensure the maximum flexibility, consistent with the protection of public health. In negotiations on the Directive, and in any subsequent implementation, we will also seek to contain the regulatory impact, and we welcome the stated intention of the Herbal Forum to work constructively and closely with the Medicines Control Agency to achieve this objective.

  At this stage of negotiations on the Directive it is not yet possible to make estimates of costs of registering products. The cost of testing finished products before release onto the market is a matter for the relevant licence holders and, if they choose to purchase the service from a third party, this is for negotiation between the user and supplier of such services.

  Anatomy Act
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the application of the Anatomy Act 1984; and if he will make a statement. [86591]

  Mr. Lammy
  A comprehensive review of the law relating to human organs has been undertaken. Consultation has taken place through the report, "Human Bodies, Human Choices", published in July 2002.

  We expect to legislate when parliamentary time allows.

  Autism (Good Practice Guidelines)
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to monitor progress in implementing his Department's good practice guidelines in respect to autism. [84503]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Ivan Lewis) at the Department for Education and Skills, on 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 96W.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics he collates on the(a) abuse and (b) neglect of residents in (i) private care homes, (ii) local authority care homes and (iii) NHS hospitals. [86507]

  Jacqui Smith
  Statistical data on the incidences of abuse or neglect of residents in care homes or inpatients in national health service hospitals is not collected centrally.

  Local councils are required to keep clear and accurate records of complaints or allegations of abuse. They should be kept in such a way that they create statistical information as a by-product.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the introduction of legislation to change the child protection system following the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie. [83217]

  Jacqui Smith
  We expect to receive Lord Laming's report into the circumstances that led to the death of Victoria Climbie later this year or early next year. The Government will consider the report's recommendations fully, before deciding what, if any, action, which might include legislation, needs to be taken as a result

  Drug Rehabilitation
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many drug rehabilitation centres treat addicts of(a) cocaine and (b) heroin. [86397]

  Ms Blears
  There are 715 drug treatment services in England that treat addicts of cocaine and heroin.
  666W
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of drug rehabilitation was in each of the last five years; and how much was spent per person treated in(a) England, (b) the North East of England and (c) the constituency of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. [86398]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not available centrally. There are 138 drug treatment residential rehabilitation services in England, providing over 3000 bedspaces within the drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation sector. The cost per week, per patient, varies from around 300 to around 1000 for a placement within a medical/clinical facility.

  There is no information at present on community rehabilitation programmes, although work on unit costs is being developed by the National Treatment Agency.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of those receiving drug treatment are private patients. [86696]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not available centrally.

  In England, during the year 2000–2001 the overall number of drug users reported as being in treatment was around 118,500.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are undergoing drug treatment, broken down by drug action team area. [86691]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the numbers of drug misusers in contact with drug treatment agencies in England, broken down by drug action team area of treatment, is given in table 11 of the Statistical Bulletin, Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on drug misusers in treatment in England, 2000–01—http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0133.htm. This document is available in the Library.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what menu of treatments he requires to be available in each drug action team area. [86693]

  Ms Blears
  The overall menu of treatment services that residents of a drug action team (DAT) area should have access to, located either within the DAT area or located outside, is as follows:Open access services:

  Advice and information services

  Harm reduction services

  Structured community based services:

  Community prescribing—specialist service

  Community prescribing—general practitioners

  Structured counseling

  Structured day programmes

  Aftercare

  Residential services:

  In-patient detoxification

  Residential rehabilitation

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many former drug addicts there are, broken down by(a) treatment method and (b) type of drug use. [86694]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not available centrally.
  667W
  Recent research evidence demonstrates that around half (47 per cent.) of drug users who have gone through residential programmes, and more than a third (35 per cent.) of those from methadone programmes are still abstinent from opiates at four to five years. More than a third (38 per cent.) of all the residential clients were also abstinent from all six illicit target drugs (illicit heroin, non-prescribed methadone, non-prescribed benzodiazepines, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, amphetamines) at four to five years.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of ex-drug addicts who have undergone treatment are drug free.[86699]

  Ms Blears
  Recent research evidence demonstrates that around half (47 per cent.) of drug users who have gone through residential programmes, and more than a third (35 per cent.) of those from methadone programmes are still abstinent from opiates at four to five years. More than a third (38 per cent.) of all the residential clients were also abstinent from all six illicit target drugs (illicit heroin, non-prescribed methadone, non-prescribed benzodiazepines, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, amphetamines) at four to five years.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many former drug addicts have remained drug free for(a) over one year and (b) over five years following treatment. [86700]

  Ms Blears
  Recent research evidence noted that:

  The percentage of residential clients who were abstinent from illicit opiates (heroin and illicit methadone) was around 50 per cent. at one year. Abstinence rates from stimulants (all forms of cocaine and amphetamines) was around 68 per cent. at one year. Abstinence from crack cocaine was around 82 per cent. The percentage of clients treated in community methadone treatments who were abstinent from illicit opiates at one year was around 22 per cent. Abstinence rates from stimulants (all forms of cocaine and amphetamines) was around 64 per cent. at one year. Abstinence from crack cocaine was around 79 per cent.

  These reductions in illicit drug use were generally maintained throughout the four to five year follow-up period. Almost half (47 per cent.) of the residential, and more than a third (35 per cent.) of those from the methadone programmes were still abstinent from opiates at four to five years. More than a third (38 per cent.) of all the residential clients were abstinent from all six illicit target drugs (illicit heroin, non-prescribed methadone, non-prescribed benzodiazepines, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, amphetamines) at four to five years.

  Harefield Hospital
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve cardiac surgery facilities at Harefield Hospital and when they will be operational. [86433]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Royal Brompton and Harefield National Health Service Trust has planned the replacement of a catheter laboratory and two cardiac 668W
  operating theatres at Harefield Hospital. The former will be in operation by July 2003 and the latter by May 2003.

  Heroin
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths from heroin overdoses there were in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [82268]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Mann dated 16 December 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question asking how many deaths from heroin overdoses there were in a) 2001 and b) 2002. (82268)
  The latest available figures for deaths related to drag poisoning1 in England and Wales are for 2000. The number of deaths in that year where heroin or morphine2 was mentioned on the death certificate was 926. 3;
  1selected using the following codes from the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision:
  292 (drug psychoses)
  304 (drug dependence)
  305.2–305.9 (nondependent abuse of drugs)
  E850-E858 (accidental poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biologicals)
  E950.0-E950.5 (suicide and self-inflicted poisoning by solid or liquid substances)
  E980.0-E980.5 (poisoning by solid or liquid substances, undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted)
  E962.0 (assault by poisoning—drugs and medicaments)
  where heroin or morphine was also mentioned on the death certificate.
  2 As heroin breaks down in the body into morphine, the latter is often detected at post mortem. For this reason, all deaths mentioning heroin or morphine have been included.
  3 Source: Office for National Statistics (2002) Report: Deaths related to drug poisoning: results for England and Wales, 1993–2000. Health Statistics Quarterly 13, 76–82.

  HIV
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he plans to take to counter the increase in cases of HIV; and what extra resources will be made available to improve awareness of HIV and the need for better sexual health practices, with particular reference to younger people. [85672]

  Ms Blears
  The aims of the sexual health and HIV strategy published last year include reducing the transmission of HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and reducing the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV and STIs. The strategy sets a goal to reduce newly acquired HIV and gonorrhoea infections by 25 per cent., by the end of 2007.

  The Department has allocated an extra £47.5 million towards implementation of the strategy. This includes £4 million for the new sex lottery awareness campaign about preventing STIs, including HIV, which targets young adults aged 18 to 30 years. This complements the teenage pregnancy awareness campaign, which also highlights the importance of condoms in preventing STIs.

  Homeless People
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the report by Dr. Sian Griffiths, commissioned by the Rough Sleepers Unit, on primary health care provision for homeless people has been published. [81749]

  Mr. Hutton
  The paper 'Addressing the health needs of rough sleepers' was published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on Wednesday 11 December 2002.

  Hospices
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding via the NHS has been given to support(a) St Catherine's Hospice and (b) Derian House Hospice. [84062]

  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide additional funding via the NHS to(a) Derian House Hospice and (b) St. Catherine's Hospice. [84063]

  Ms Blears
  During 2002–03, the Chorley & South Ribble Primary Care Trust (PCT) provided recurrent funding of £427,000 to St. Catherine's Hospice and 11,000 to Derian House Hospice.

  In addition, some non recurrent funding has recently been made available across Central Lancashire for which £40.000 will be allocated to hospices in Chorley, South Ribble and Preston. In the development of the local delivery plan, the PCT is considering increasing its investment in hospice services in 2003–04. However this will be dependent on other priorities.

  Imported Poultry
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the FSA has taken to identify imports of turkeys from Brazil that have been treated with antibiotic furazolidine; and whether all poultry imported in 2002 from Brazil has been treated with furazolidine. [86935]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]Since October 2002, all imports of Brazilian turkey and other poultry meat have been tested for nitrofuran antibiotic residues. Furazolidone has not been detected in any sample.

  Inter-country Adoptions
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current backlog is of cases of inter-country adoptions being dealt with by his Department. [85528]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health is currently taking approximately five months to process inter-country adoption applications received from local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies. This involves comprehensive checking of all the papers received to ensure that they are in the format required by the country of origin and that the various legalisation and authentication procedures have been correctly carried out. The Department process every case as quickly and efficiently as they are able so that all children can have a safe and smooth transition to their new life in the United Kingdom. This processing time 670W
  has increased following a significant increase in the complexity of cases and UK adopters applying to new countries.

  In addition to processing applications, the Department also has responsibility for:

  providing information and assistance to prospective adopters and professionals in the social care field;

  on inter-country adoption procedures and how the relevant pieces of UK legislation on adoption should be applied in practice;

  the production of fact sheets giving information on how to adopt from overseas countries, which prove to be an in valuable tool for both adoptive parents themselves and also the social workers carrying out home study assessment;

  handling a continuous stream of telephone inquiries and letters from adopters wanting to inquire about how their adoption application is progressing;

  general inquiries about both domestic and inter-country adoption; and

  providing urgent advice to entry clearance officers overseas and the Home Office about whether all the required documents are in place to be able to issue entry clearance to the UK, and on whether a court in the UK would be likely to make an adoption order after the family have returned.

  A number of initiatives are being put in place to improve processing times including: Saturday working to target outstanding cases; the recent recruitment of an additional caseworker; and a change in processing for Northern Ireland cases allowing them to be managed direct by the Department of Health and Social Services Public Safety, therefore cutting their overall processing time.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting times were for(a) children and (b) adults suffering from mental health problems to receive treatment in each year since 1997. [82701]

  Jacqui Smith
  The estimated mean waiting times for first outpatient appointments following general practitioner referrals to child and adolescent psychiatry and other mental health specialties, between 1996–97 and 2001–02, are shown in the table. At end March 1997 there were 600 and 1,370 patients waiting over 26 weeks for a first outpatient appointment for child and adolescent psychiatry and other mental health specialties respectively. The equivalent figures for March 2002 were 13 and 52.

  Mean waiting time1 (in weeks) for first outpatient appointment.

  Child andadolescent psychiatry

  Other MH specialities2

  1996 to 1997

  10.4

  6.3

  1997 to 1998

  10.1

  6.1

  1998 to 1999

  10.6

  6.0

  1999 to 2000

  10.0

  6.1

  2001 to 2002

  10.3

  6.1

  2001/2

  10.8

  6.6

  671W
  1The means should be interpreted with caution because they are estimated from the total number of patients seen within 4,9,13, and 26 week timebands

  2Other MH specialties includes the following: mental illness, forensic psychiatry, psychotherapy, and old age psychiatry.

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08

  Mid-Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the mid-Essex hospital trust area were waiting for in-patient treatment on the latest date for which figures are available; and how many were waiting on 31 March 1997. [87140]

  Mr. Lammy
  The total number of patients waiting at mid-Essex hospital services national health service trust at the end of October 2002 was 9,675. The total number of patients waiting at the end of March 1997 was 8,391.

  MMR
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the take-up of(a) MMR and (b) separate vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella was in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [86032]

  Ms Blears
  The uptake rates of MMR in the last 12 months in the United Kingdom is shown in the table.

  Quarter

  Percentage uptake

  July to September 2001

  84.2

  October to December 2001

  84.0

  January to March 2002

  83.8

  April to June 2002

  84.3

  Note:

  Uptake rates for single measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations are not routinely collected.

  Vacancies in NHS trusts by DHSC and North Essex Mental Health Partnership NHS trust, qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (excluding health authority staff)

  3 month vacancy rate (percentage)

  3 month vacancy(number)

  Staff in post(whole-time equivalent)

  Staff in post(headcount)

  England (excluding HA staff)

  3.1%

  8,390

  265,720

  329,980

  Midlands and Eastern

  2.5%

  1,860

  72,170

  90,190

  North Essex Mental Health Partnership NHS trust

  2.2%

  20

  700

  790

  London

  6.1%

  2,750

  45,250

  55,150

  Northern

  2.0%

  1,730

  85,420

  103,080

  Southern

  3.3%

  2,050

  61,910

  80,460

  Special health authorities

  0.9%

  10

  970

  1,090

  Key Notes:

  1. Three-month vacancy information is as at 31st March 2002.

  2. Three-month vacancies are vacancies which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more, (whole-time equivalent).

  3. Three-month vacancy rates are three-month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three-month vacancies plus staff in post.

  4. Three-month vacancy rates are calculated using staff in post from the Vacancy Survey, March 2002.

  5. Staff in post data is from the Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2001.

  6. Staff in post data excludes staff employed by health authorities, as vacancy information was only collected from trusts, PCTs and Special Health Authorities.

  7. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest ten.

  8. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  Other Notes:

  9. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  10. Due to rounding, calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  11. Figures may not match previously published data due to a different method of rounding used on the staff in post data.

  Source.

  Vacancy numbers and rates: Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2002

  Non-medical staff in post: Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce census September 2001.

  MRI Scans
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued in respect of waiting times for MRI scans; and what the average waiting time is in(a) England and (b) North Staffordshire. [85673]

  Ms Blears
  We do not collect waiting times for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, nor has any central guidance been issued. The length of time that a patient may have to wait for any scan is dependent on their clinical condition. Emergency cases need to be seen immediately. Other cases will be carried out as quickly as possible, dependent on the clinical priority of all the remaining patients waiting to be scanned.

  Where an MRI scan forms part of the diagnostic process for a patient urgently referred with suspected cancer, this will be covered by the target of a maximum two months wait from urgent referral to first treatment, which will be rolled out for all cancers by the end of 2005.

  To increase the capacity of diagnostic services, funding has been made available for the provision of new and replacement scanners, including a replacement scanner at North Staffordshire. By 2004, approximately 100 MRI scanners will have been provided through central purchasing programmes.

  Nurses (North Essex)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for nurses in the North Essex Mental Health Partnership; and how many approved nursing posts there are. [86510]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of nurse vacancies at North Essex Mental Health Partnership national health service trust is shown in the table. Information on the number of approved nursing posts is not collected centrally.

  Prison Health Services
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2002, Official Report, col. 748W, on prison health services, if the increased funding is ring-fenced for NHS services within prisons. [86964]

  Jacqui Smith
  Detailed decisions on the allocation of the increased funding announced for prison health services have not yet been finalised.

  Restaurant Menus
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information restaurants and take-away food outlets are required to publish in relation to the presence of genetically modified foods and food products in the meals they supply; how they are able to find out about such a presence in(a) their ingredients and (b) the food which the animals which produced it were fed on; what the penalties are for non-compliance with these requirements; which enforcement authorities are responsible for ensuring compliance; how many prosecutions have been brought for failing to comply with the regulations; what the outcome was in each of those cases; and what estimate he makes of the total cost to date to (i) industry in implementing and (ii) public funds in enforcing this legislation. [85833]

  Ms Blears
  Current labelling regulations require food sold to the final consumer or to mass caterers to be labelled as genetically modified if an ingredient contains novel genetic material (DNA or protein). There are no requirements to label products from animals fed GM feed. In the United Kingdom, these requirements also extend to food sold in catering establishments where information on the extent to which GM ingredients are used is provided to customers on demand.

  Enforcement of the Genetically Modified and Novel Food (Labelling) (England) Regulations 2000 is a matter for the local authorities, with the penalty on conviction under these regulations being a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale. Parallel arrangements apply in other of parts of the UK. Compliance checks are usually carried out as part of routine premises inspections and no specific costs are recorded for the enforcement of these regulations. There have been no prosecutions to date. No details of the actual costs incurred by the hospitality industry have been received in recent consultations, but the total cost to the catering industry was estimated at £l to £2 million in the regulatory impact assessment for the Genetically Modified and Novel Food (Labelling) (England) Regulations 2000.

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the side effects from smallpox vaccinations are. [85635]

  Mr. Hutton
  Full details of the side effects of vaccination and contraindications to vaccination are given in the Department's draft smallpox plan available at http://www.doh.gov.uk/epcu/cbr/boil/smallpoxplan.htm
  674W
  Severe side effects that could occur in anyone included generalized vaccinia and progress vaccinia and post-vaccination encephalitis. However these side effects were more likely to occur in those with any degree of immuno-suppression or in pregnant women and their offspring. Eczema vaccinatum was a very serious side effect in those with active skin lesions at the time of the vaccination. Post vaccination encephalitis could also occur in anyone.

  The overall risk of severe complications following vaccination is low but they could be fatal. Complications occurred more frequently in persons receiving their first dose of vaccine, and among very young children.

  Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent estimate he has made of the tot al registration cost for a product under the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive; [85795]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the cost to manufacturers of the testing of each batch of products under the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive; [85797]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the cost of completion of an individual dossier to support an application under the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive. [85796]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) today and on 5 December 2002,Official Report, column 967W.

  Vaccination
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to extend the vaccination of children in the UK. [86035]

  Ms Blears
  The existing childhood immunisation programme has been extremely effective in eradicating diseases that previously killed and disabled large numbers of children. For example, polio vaccination has eliminated polio for more than 15 years from this country. MMR has virtually wiped out congenital rubella syndrome and has prevented any child deaths from acute measles for 10 years.

  The impact of the childhood programme is reviewed regularly. Changes to programme are only considered following a careful assessment of all of the evidence by the expert advisory body the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. No decisions have yet been made concerning extending the programme.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list take-up rates of vaccinations generally available through the NHS for each of the past five years. [86033]

  Ms Blears
  The information available about uptake of immunisations, primarily childhood immunisations and the numbers of vaccinations given in England is contained in the Statistical Bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2001–02". A copy of
  675W
  the bulletin is in the Library and can also be found on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/ sb0218.htm.

  Data were not collected on a routine basis for influenza immunisation before 2000–01. In that year, uptake among the age target group of people over 65 years of age was 65 per cent., across England and improved to 68 per cent., across England in the following year, 2001–02. Data are not yet available for the end of the programme for 2002–03.

  Woodhill Prison
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding Milton Keynes PCT received in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 1999–2000 in respect of the prison population at Woodhill. [86965]

  Jacqui Smith
  Milton Keynes Primary Care Trust (PCT) received specific funding of 50,000 in 2001–02 and 108,000 in 2002–03 to support the development of improved mental health services for the prison population at Her Majesty's Prison Woodhill.

  In each year the PCT, and previously the health authority, received funding for the secondary care of that part of its population classified by the Office for National Statistics as normally resident in HMP Woodhill. This funding comprised part of the general resource allocation for the PCT and was not separately identified.
  676W
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding Milton Keynes PCT will receive in repect of Woodhill Prison as a result of the increased national funding. [86966]

  Jacqui Smith
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) will not immediately assume financial responsibility for prison health services as a result of the transfer of Departmental budgetary responsibility for these services to the Department from April 2003. Future allocations to PCTs in respect of local prison populations have not yet been calculated, but in most cases the resources allocated will be significantly greater than current prison service expenditure on health care in the relevant prisons.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether remand prisoners in Woodhill Prison are included in the funding calculation for Milton Keynes PCT. [86967]

  Jacqui Smith
  Remand prisoners will be taken into account in future funding calculations for Primary Care Trusts.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding Milton Keynes PCT received in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 1990–2000 for upgrading health facilities within Woodhill Prison. [86968]

  Jacqui Smith
  The prison service is responsible for the maintenance of health care facilities at Her Majesty's Prison Woodhill. Accordingly, no funding was allocated to Milton Keynes Primary Care Trust, or to its predecessor, Buckinghamshire Health Authority, for upgrading health facilities within HMP Woodhill during the three years in question.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Bain Review
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  The Independent Review of the Fire Service was announced on 12 September 2002 under the chairmanship of Sir George Bain. The review considered UK-wide arrangements for the future organisation and management of the Fire Service. I have today placed copies of the final report in the Vote and Printed Paper Offices and Libraries of the House.

  Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales)
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended by the Boundary Commission Act 1992 requires that the Commission undertake a general review of constituencies in Wales. The Commission is required to submit a report to the Deputy Prime Minister, not less than twelve years from their last report. The previous report was submitted on 16 December 1994. The next report must be submitted by 16 December 2006. The Commission expects to take about two years to complete the review.

  I have been notified by the Boundary Commission for Wales that they will start their 5th general review of parliamentary constituencies today. The review will include consideration of Assembly Electoral Regions, as required by the Government of Wales Act 1998.

  The Commission expects to take about two years to complete its review.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Employability and Long-Term Unemployment Taskforce
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  I am today publishing the Report of the inter-Departmental Taskforce on Employability and Long-Term Unemployment, which was established to consider and drive forward action to increase employability and reduce long-term unemployment. The Terms or Reference committed the Taskforce to report and make recommendations on how current actions might be improved and to prepare an Action Plan which integrates actions across Government Departments and Agencies. That Report, which contains some 40 recommendations and 12 action points affecting most Government Departments, is launched today, 16 December.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Entry Clearance
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  I have arranged for copies of the second annual report by Rabinder Singh QC, the Independent monitor for Entry Clearance Refusals to be laid before the House today. I welcome Mr. Singh's report and note his comments and suggestions, which will receive careful consideration.

  Mr. Singh has not sought to extend his appointment beyond 30 november 2002 and I thank Mr. Singh for all his hard work and dedication during his two years as Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Offenders on Licence
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn)
  In September, the Home Secretary asked Stephen Shaw, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, to look at the case of Malcolm Rourke. This was a disturbing and shocking crime and I extend every sympathy to the victim.

  Instances where an offender on licence supervision commits an offence of similar gravity to the original one are thankfully few in number. However, because of the devastating effect these crimes can have on the lives of their victims there can never be any room for complacency among those whose task it is to supervise such offenders. That is why the Home Secretary asked Stephen Shaw to undertake this inquiry. This work has now been completed.

  I am grateful to Stephen and his team for conducting such a thorough investigation and for producing a detailed analysis of how the arrangements for managing and recalling dangerous offenders can be further enhanced. Although the report concluded that there was no evidence of negligence or incompetence, it did make a number of constructive recommendations as to how these arrangements might be strengthened in the future. These have been accepted in full and will now be implemented.

  It is a sad reality that there are no guarantees with this type of work. It is not always possible to foresee and prevent crimes committed by people on licence any more than it is possible to do so for those without previous convictions. We can however learn lessons and make sure that every effort is made to protect the public. In particular the most important change is that, in future, recall decisions will be taken by the local probation service which is supervising the offender.

  In addition the Criminal Justice Bill currently before parliament includes provisions to enable the courts to pass an indeterminate sentence on those who continue to present a danger to society, and ensure that they remain in custody until it is considered safe to release them.
  35WS
  We will not be publishing the full report as it would place individuals, who have been exonerated from any suggestion of wrongdoing, in an unfair position. A summary of the case, terms of reference and key findings are as follows:

  Following the conviction of Malcolm Rourke in August 2002 for the offences of rape and robbery, committed whilst he was subject to licence supervision, the Home Secretary asked Stephen Shaw, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, to conduct an inquiry into the handling of the case. The terms of reference were:
  "To examine the way in which the Prison Service and the National Probation Service managed the case of Malcolm Rourke following his release from custody on 14 June 2002; to consider whether, in light of this case, any changes need to be made to the arrangements for managing the post release supervision and recall of dangerous offenders; and to make recommendations."
  The key findings of the inquiry are:

  Action Plan

  All of the recommendations have been accepted and work is underway to implement them:
  The right to recall dangerous offenders will rest with the Assistant Chief Probation Officer in the area concerned, subject to Parole Board review, not with the SEU.
  The National Probation Service is planning introduce the electronic version of the Offender Assessment System (OASys) by 31 December, 2003. This will provide a single case assessment which staff in each area will have access to.
  The introduction of OASys and the development of its application to include supervising officers case notes will further enhance communication between hostels and probation staff.
  The National Probation Directorate will establish a recall forum with representatives from the Home Office's Sentence Enforcement Unit, the National Probation Directorate, the Parole Board and other agencies who might have an interest in this process. This forum will:
  review the collation of recall management information across the agencies; identify gaps; and
  ensure more effective information sharing systems are put in place.

  New guidance on recalls, in the form of a Probation Circular, will be issued to NPS staff.

  Representatives from NPD, SEU and Parole Board have already met with legal advisers to address the status of MAPPP documentation and this will be clarified as part of further guidance to be issued on MAPPA early next year.

  Internal restructuring within SEU will include responsibility for overseeing and regularly updating guidance on these issues.

  Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Area will consider what further training requirements are needed in the light of this case.
  36WS
  The review of the serious incident reporting system has led to the piloting of new arrangements in two Probation Areas. In evaluating these pilots consideration will be given to strengthening the service's investigatory arrangements.

LORD CHANCELLOR

  Transsexual People
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  On 11 July the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgments in the cases of Goodwin v The United Kingdom and "I" v The United Kingdom. The Court found that the United Kingdom had breached the Convention rights of these two transsexual people, under Articles 8 and 12 (the right to respect for private life and the right to marry). In answer to Questions before the Parliamentary recess, colleagues and I made clear the Government's commitment to announce later in the year how we proposed to implement the rulings.

  The Interdepartmental Working Group, whose initial report the then Home Secretary presented to Parliament in July 2000, had recently been reconvened to give further consideration to the implications of giving transsexual people full legal recognition in their acquired gender. In light of the Goodwin and "I" judgments, the Group's terms of reference were expanded and it was tasked to report in October. Ministers have now collectively considered the recommendations received from officials.

  We will aim to publish, in due course, a draft outline Bill to give legal recognition in their acquired gender to transsexual people who can demonstrate that they have taken decisive steps towards living fully and permanently in the gender acquired since they were registered at birth. That will make it possible for them (if otherwise eligible) to marry in their acquired gender.

  The Government are committed, therefore, to legislating as soon as possible to give transsexual people their Convention rights. Whether Parliament at Westminster should legislate for the whole of the UK on this matter is under consideration, particularly in view of the inter-relationship between devolved and reserved policy aspects.

  Except where limited exceptions will be created in the legislation, we propose that formal recognition in the acquired gender will bring with it the rights and responsibilities appropriate to that gender—normally, from the date that the change is recognised. It is expected that rights and obligations previously incurred will continue, in most areas; a parent, for example, who changes gender, will not lose his or her obligations—and rights—as father or mother to the child.

  Provision will be needed for disclosure to be requested in certain circumstances. For example, insurance and pension companies, whose decisions on cover and premiums depend on gender and medical history, may need to continue to require full disclosure, where relevant and subject to data protection and other legislation. The Criminal Records Bureau must be able to demand full disclosure for clearance to work with

  37WS
  children and other vulnerable people; but I am pleased to announce that modifications have been made to their procedures, so that the privacy of transsexual people in relation to their former identity is fully respected. Procedures have been similarly modified in Scotland.

  Changing legal identity is a serious step, with significant consequences. It is important that no-one should embark upon formal recognition in the acquired gender without convincing evidence. We will therefore propose that applications should be scrutinised by an authorising body, given legal powers to assess medical evidence before the transsexual person is allowed to register in the new gender. In some cases, where the person undertook gender reassignment years earlier, and has lived successfully in the acquired gender, that assessment may be straightforward. In other cases, the authorising body will need to be assured that, in addition to meeting medical criteria, the transsexual person has lived successfully in the acquired gender for at least two years. The medical criteria may include medical treatments to modify the person's sexual characteristics, but the Government will not require surgery as a condition of registration in the acquired gender.

  We do not intend history to be re-written. Original birth records will remain in existence, unamended, and will continue to be made available when needed. But the authorising body will empower the Registrar General to create a new record in relation to the transsexual person, from which a new certificate stating acquired name and gender may be drawn. This certificate will be indistinguishable from a birth certificate, in order to
  38WS
  remedy the breaches of Article 8 identified by the European Court of Human Rights. The link between the original and the revised record will remain confidential within the Registrar General's office.

  We are committed to facilitating, as fully as possible, transsexual people's assimilation into the gender to which they feel they belong. We share the Court's view that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a minority of individuals living in dignity and worth in accordance with the identity they are driven to assume. We do not seek, however, to erase all trace of their former identity. We have concluded that there is no need for transsexual people to be given new National Insurance numbers on registering in their acquired gender. NI numbers give no indication of gender, and employment and data protection legislation should give adequate protection against careless or malicious disclosure in the rare instances where the number enables a link to be made between former and current identities.

  Our aim is to ensure that in future transsexual people will be better protected from having constantly and unnecessarily to reveal their history. Our legislation will enable transsexual people confidently to take up those rights which have been denied to them in society—including the right to marry in their acquired gender—while preserving other obligations entered into in the original gender. We will be pleased to receive comments on our proposals, which deserve the support of all who have in the past expressed concern at the lack of legal recognition of transsexual people in the United Kingdom.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

House of Lords and House of Commons Refreshment Departments
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked the Chairman of Committees:
Whether he will consider the advantages of merging the House of Lords and the House of Commons Refreshment Departments.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I am always ready to consider any proposal from your Lordships. If your Lordships wished to pursue this, I think that, in the first instance, the House Committee would wish to seek the advice of the Refreshment Committee. Consultation would then be needed with the authorities in another place.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. Does he agree that, on grounds of management efficiency alone, there would be a case for merging the Refreshment Department of this House with that of the other place? Does he further agree that it is an even more pressing problem given that the Commons will start to rise much earlier in the evening, and that there are likely to be underused resources in the Refreshment Department in the other place by January? Will he, therefore, give the matter urgency?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we are prepared to consider it. So far as efficiencies are concerned, I understand that the last time the issue was raised—which, admittedly, was in 1981–82—it was decided that no economic advantages would accrue to either House. It is too early to say what the effect of the change of sitting patterns will be in your Lordships House. I understand that the same view is taken in another place. Obviously, that must be closely monitored.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords—
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, is the Chairman aware that changes are taking place in the Refreshment Department? Mr Bibbiani, the superintendent, leaves in two or three days' time, and his successor starts work in the new year. Work on new staff facilities, new kitchens and a new restaurant outlet start in July. Is he also aware that, as chairman of the Refreshment Committee, I have regular meetings with my counterpart in the House of Commons, when we
444
discuss matters of mutual interest, which do not at present include amalgamation of the two departments?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who is chairman of the Refreshment Committee. I am sure that we all wish to join him in paying tribute to Mr Bibbiani, who is shortly to retire. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, Mr Bibbiani was awarded an OBE in recognition of his outstanding 22 years' service as superintendent of the Refreshment Department. I am sure that the House will be pleased to hear what the chairman of the Refreshment Committee said about new facilities and keeping in touch with the other place.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Refreshment Committee, which takes great interest in the welfare of the staff, who serve us amazingly well in your Lordships House. Does the Chairman agree that it is vital that the morale of staff be a primary consideration in any discussion of future arrangements?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in echoing her praise for the staff of the department, who serve us so well, particularly at this time of the year. I know that for many of your Lordships the presence of friendly and familiar faces is an important element of our services. I reassure the staff that they have no reason for concern.
Lord Roper: My Lords, does the Chairman of Committees not accept that Barry, in his original plans for the Palace, suggested that there be a common set of kitchens for both Houses? Although that was not put into practice, will he at least examine whether there are opportunities, while maintaining the diversity important to the two Houses, of achieving economies of scale?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as I said, we will look into the matter. Since the original Barry design of this House, refreshment facilities have sprung up elsewhere, including in outbuildings—in our own case, in Millbank House. I am thinking, in particular, of the Barry Room, the Attlee Room, the Reid Room and the Home Room. The Commons now have an enormous empire across the road in Portcullis House and at 1 Parliament Street.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, will the Chairman undertake to see whether fairly traded products are used as much as possible in the catering of the Houses of Parliament?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that strays slightly from the Question on the Order Paper. Bearing in mind the rules of procedure of this House, which I must be the first to obey, it would be wrong of me to answer that question. However, the question will have been heard by members of the Refreshment Committee.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, will the Chairman also consider other areas of life in the House; for example, the Computer Office or even the Library? That might help efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is even wider of the Question than the previous one was.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I gave way before.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, so did I.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is obviously Gardner's Question Time.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I agree with most Members of the House that we have seen great improvements and are happy with things as they are, particularly given the new improvements to be made. Is there any discussion about the Pugin Room returning to us? In the 21 years in which I have been here, it has supposedly been coming back. When we got red carpet, we were told that it would return, but it did not.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I understand that that issue has been on the agenda for many years. Nothing has happened about it so far.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, has the Chairman any information on the costs of running our department as against that in the House of Commons, and on losses or profitability in each case?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I do not want to get into a comparison between our arrangements and those of another place. The net costs to the House of Lords last year were £977,000 out of a turnover of £2.7 million. The costs in the Commons are a matter for them.

Terrorism: Terminology
2.43 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they mean by "Islamic terrorist".
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not believe that the term "Islamic terrorist" is appropriate. We should not allow any credibility to the claims of some terrorists that they are motivated by religious conviction. They must know, as
446
we do, that Islam is a faith of peace. As many leaders, political and religious, have made clear, terrorism is an anathema to Islamic faith and practice.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that since 9/11 "terrorism" has become interchangeable with "Islam"? Terminology such as Islamic terrorist, Islamic jihad and Islamic warlords is offensive to all Muslims such as me. Does she agree that a terrorist is a terrorist, whether they are IRA, ETA, Irgun, Tamil Tigers or the Hindu extremists such as RSS, Shiv Sinna and Bajrang Dal?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government condemn all terrorism, but the fact is that some terrorist groups refer to themselves as Islamic. That is the problem. They claim Islam as their justification. They are entirely wrong in doing so. Islam provides no justification for their terrorist activity, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear on 12th November last year, when he said that acts such as September 11th were wholly contrary to the Islamic faith.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's immediate reply, what consideration might the Government give to helping to build up mainstream, moderate Islamic opinion in this country? The juxtaposition of the terms "Islamic" and "terrorist" is very unfortunate. The vast majority of Muslims in this country and around the world are honest, godly, decent people. They need a better voice in this country. I wonder whether we could move towards having some equivalent to the Board of Deputies of British Jews for the Muslim community, which could bring together all the different strands of Muslims and act as an articulate voice for the Muslim community in this country.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with much of what the right reverend Prelate has said. I remind him that a new unit has been set up in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to strengthen and further our relationship and dialogue with communities in this country on a whole range of issues. We have also begun Islam awareness training in the FCO. We seek new ideas about ways in which we can communicate with the Islamic community. We have also established an Islamic media unit to try to overcome some of these problems. My honourable friend in another place, Mr O'Brien, has recently recorded a message of good will to the Islamic faith in this country. We are trying to work on these issues.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I agree totally with the Minister's definition of Islamic terrorists, but many distort the true, peace-loving face of Muslims, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford rightly said. More

447
specifically, what is the Government's position on Abu Hamza, who is the unacceptable face and not a good advertisement for Islam?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we recognise the threat posed by some of the appalling statements that have come from Mr Abu Hamza. Again, the Government believe that for those statements to masquerade in any way as an expression of the Islamic faith is entirely wrong. We lose no opportunity in expressing that view.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in Muslim countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, where there are the same problems with terrorism, a differentiation in terminology is made between political Islam and spiritual Islam? That is a positive and helpful definition of terminology to help make judgments on terrorists or any other people who use the name of a religion to carry out acts against humanity.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with that. It is important that we find ways of referring to these organisations that are acceptable but still descriptive of their objectives. It is worth recording that the broadest grouping of Muslim states—the Organisation of the Islamic Conference—strongly condemned the terrible acts of 11th September last year and supports efforts to track down the perpetrators of those acts and of others.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that discrimination against Catholics some 100 years ago helped to provide the basis from which the IRA found so many sympathisers and that it is therefore extremely important that we manage as far as possible to remove discrimination against Muslims? In that context, will she answer rather more specifically the proposal of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that we encourage the formation of a council of Muslims in this country on a similar basis to the Board of Deputies of British Jews to demonstrate that this is now an accepted part of the faith communities of British citizens?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that my answers expressed our view that of course Islam is very much among the community of religions in this country. The Foreign Office is making a huge effort to reach out to the Islamic community. I remind the House that on 12th November this year the Prime Minister talked about creating bridges of understanding between religious faiths. He went on to talk about the pioneering work of the Alexandria process. We would want to discuss the creation of a specific organisation with the Islamic religious leaders in this country to see what their views were before saying whether that would be a suitable vehicle on which to go forward.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, although I appreciate the sensitivity of description and do not
448
want to see any form of discrimination taking place, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, when addressing the question of what we mean by "Islamic terrorist", the difficulty is that most people would understand an "Islamic terrorist" to be someone who practises terror and does so in the name of Islam?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that was the purport of my initial reply to the House. Some terrorist groups regularly describe themselves as "Islamic". When preparing to answer this Question, I took the opportunity to look through the list of terrorist groups and found that 12 of them throughout the world describe themselves as "Islamic". I hope that I have made it entirely clear that Her Majesty's Government do not accept that that is a fair and accurate description.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord, Lard Ahmed, suggests, the words "Islamic" and "terrorist" become interchangeable, does the Minister agree that that interchange is about as illogical as "Green Park Tube station"?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords; it is entirely illogical. However, I should point out to the noble Earl that that is why the perpetrators of terrorism want to link the two. It is in their interests to appeal to moderate Islamic opinion and convince the latter that they are somehow acting on its behalf. That is not true. To put it frankly, we simply should not allow them to get away with it.

Social Exclusion Unit
2.51 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the function of the Social Exclusion Unit and what is its annual cost.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the remit of the Social Exclusion Unit is to help to improve government action to reduce social exclusion by producing long-term solutions to intractable social problems. The unit works mainly on specific projects agreed by the Deputy Prime Minister, in consultation with the Prime Minister. The unit's budget for the current year is £2.9 million, which, given the outcomes, is cheap at the price.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it is not, perhaps, an enormous sum in modern currency, but will the noble Lord take this opportunity to give the House a glimpse into the way in which his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister—in whose dominion this unit resides—actually brings joined-up

449
solutions into touch with joined-up problems? That would be most interesting, because none of us really understands the meaning of that language.
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, that is precisely why I did not use it when answering the noble Lord's Question. I rewrote the Answer to make it refer to the SEU as,
"producing long-term solutions to intractable social problems",
which is what it is about in language that I understand. I have always considered the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, to be what I call a "Tory gent", who really cares about society as a whole. I should point out that the work of the Social Exclusion Unit on young runaways, on reducing reoffending, on making the provision of employment and education more widespread among 16 to 18 year-olds, on reducing teenage pregnancies, on trying to attack the issue of truancy, and on dealing with rough sleeping, addresses issues about which we should all be concerned. Indeed, of themselves, such issues are not the remit of a single government department—hence the valuable work of the SEU.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most intractable social problems with which we are faced—and, indeed, have faced over the past 40 years—is how to deal with the problem of accommodation for gypsies? Can he say why that problem and the social disadvantage suffered by gypsies have not been considered by the Social Exclusion Unit?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a specific reason. However, as the noble Lord is aware from previous questions that I have answered on the problems faced by people who lead a nomadic life, we have recently commissioned research, which has now been published and is currently under consideration. As I recall, it was published on either 10th October or 10th November. We are actively considering the response, which calls for an extra 2,000 pitches around the country. I genuinely mean that this matter is being given serious consideration by the department.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was not in any way denying that there is a problem? I merely sought to ask the noble Lord whether his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who has a huge empire, is able to cope with it? I doubt it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my right honourable friend is more than up to the job. Bearing in mind the name of the department, it is only now becoming apparent to people—the penny is only just dropping—that the role of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is quite widespread, and rightly so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what is being done about reducing teenage pregnancies? Can he also outline the extent to which it has been successful?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have only a couple of facts available to me today. Conception rates among teenagers have fallen since 1998: there has been a 6 per cent decrease for the under-16s, and a 6 per cent decrease for the under-18s. That is not a brilliant outcome, but it is moving in the right direction.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate the Social Exclusion Unit on the excellent reports that it has produced. As Ministers have some difficulty in discovering the effects of sanctions that disentitle people to social security benefits, could the question of whether that does more to prevent social exclusion or to create it be referred to the Social Exclusion Unit?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, speaking from my experience in the former DSS, there is one particular area that causes people problems as regards access to benefits. Although I certainly do not make this offer on behalf of the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, the design of the application forms for such benefits could probably be looked into because that, in part, is why some people miss out on the benefits available to them.

Network Rail: Debt
2.56 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what basis they consider that Network Rail's debt should be excluded from public borrowing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Network Rail's debt is treated in the UK's national accounts in conformity with the European System of Accounts 1995. The Treasury uses national accounts to define and monitor the fiscal rules. The UK's national accounts are compiled by the Office for National Statistics, which is responsible for decisions on how to classify organisations and transactions for national accounts. When applying the ESA95 rules, ONS judged that Network Rail was not part of the public sector. That decision was supported by the European Union's statistical office (Eurostat). The decision means that Network Rail's contingent liabilities are excluded from public sector net debt.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, although I understand why the Government wish to keep the £20 billion plus of Network Rail debt off the balance sheet, is it really tenable for the Government to continue to shelter behind the position taken by the ONS when the National Audit Office has ruled that it should be treated as a subsidiary of the Strategic Rail Authority and that its accounts should be consolidated with that body? Is this really what the Minister meant when he said previously that the Government had been outstandingly successful in following accepted accounting practices?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have no particular desire to keep Network Rail's contingent liabilities out of public accounts. Indeed, we have never expressed an opinion on the subject. As to the view of the National Audit Office, I understand that it agrees with the Office for National Statistics that what the noble Viscount referred to as Network Rail's "debt" is in fact contingent liability. It will appear as notes in the accounts of the Department for Transport, and already appears as a post balance sheet event in SRA accounts. There is no concealment there.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, does the Minister recall his answer to my Written Question on 8th July (at col. WA67 of the Official Report) when he said that the expenditure and borrowing of Network Rail,
"will not be included in public sector statistics",
because the ONS had classified it as a private sector body in the national accounts? Mr Len Cook, the head of the ONS, has now written to me, saying:
"This classification [to the private sector] is not in itself a justification of the form of Network Rail. Such justification is the responsibility of those presenting government policy in the public domain".
Since this letter stops the Government hiding behind accounting technicalities, can the noble Lord tell us what is the real justification for keeping Network Rail's debts out of the public sector borrowing requirement?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have had no opportunity to see the letter that Mr Cook has written to the noble Lord. Indeed, I could not have had such an opportunity. If I had asked for it, I would not have been allowed to see it. Therefore, it is impossible for me to comment on it. I repeat: the Government have no reason to seek to keep Network Rail's contingent liabilities either off or on government accounts, and have not sought to do so.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I believe we just heard the Minister say that such debts were excluded from the national accounts because they are "contingent liabilities", not definite liabilities. May I therefore take him back to our debate on the Pre-Budget Report, on 27th November, when he said (at col. 782 of Hansard) that "all contingent liabilities"—of which this is one—"over £100,000 are declared" in the Red Book? I do not know whether he has a Red Book handy in his folder, but, if he does, would he tell us on which page the £21 billion of Network Rail liabilities appear?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in case there is any misunderstanding, the aggregate of contingent liabilities is contained in the Red Book—a copy of which I do not have with me. Much more important than that, as I have made clear to the House on more than one occasion since then, the detail of contingent liabilities—in other words, individual items—is
452
contained in the supplementary statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loan Fund accounts.
Lord Moser: My Lords, on the statistical side, from many years as head of statistics I know that this kind of classification use is very sensitive. We are also again in the statistics hunting season, when the newspapers are as keen on hunting statisticians and official statistics as foxes. However, some of the stuff appearing in the media is misjudged. Statisticians and the ONS have no choice because, as the Minister said, these classifications are based purely on the European standards. Will the Minister confirm that, as long as that is the case, the traditions of following international and professional statistical rules and standards will continue, and that the Statistics Commission should fully back the statistics office in that policy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that. Just in case there is any doubt, the Government are concerned— as was made clear by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and is made clear by the head of the National Audit Office and Len Cook in a joint letter—that there should be some resolution, for the sake of transparency, of these different definitions. That is why, since we are moving towards whole of government accounts, we shall have whole of government accounts for the national and departmental public bodies, in 2005, and for the whole of government in 2007. These definitions will at that time be reconciled. Meanwhile, it is obligatory on us to observe international rules for national accounts and to observe generally accepted accounting practice for audit purposes, as the National Audit Office does.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, in every country, it is very important that statistics are accepted as as honest a representation of the facts as can possibly be achieved? Given the real problem of definition outlined by my noble friend Lord Oakeshott, will the Minister agree to put before the House, as soon as he can once the figures have been reconciled, a clear indication of where matters fall within the private sector and where they fall within the public sector, so that we can all be enlightened?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I made a lengthy speech on this subject last week in a debate on the Pre-Budget Report, which I commend to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. There are one or two problems with it, but I can talk to her about those. Generally, however, we have been as transparent as possible. Some people seem to think that money going to Network Rail is not being declared in the public accounts. Let me make it entirely clear that subsidies and investment grants to Network Rail are reported as public expenditure. Indeed, under the previous government, Railtrack was treated as the Office for National Statistics now treats Network Rail. Privatisation meant taking items off the public accounts at a time when it was perfectly well known

453
that, in the end, you could not allow the railways or the public utilities to close down. That was the time when falsification took place; not now.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, that because the Government act as the lender of last resort and indeed provide security to the providers of finance to Network Rail, that sum should be included in the accounts? Does he agree that it is at least regrettable that the Government feel it necessary to follow some obscure European rule rather than follow the substance of the transaction?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is far from being an obscure European rule; it is a rule which has been accepted for national accounts for many countries for a very long time. I read Sir John Bourn's evidence to the Treasury Select Committee two weeks ago, and I read it with great care. Quite frankly, Sir John did not say what the noble Baroness. Lady Noakes, claims he said.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, later this afternoon, with the leave of the House, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the European Council (Copenhagen). It may be helpful to the House to know that it is intended that the Statement will be repeated after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and before the speech of my noble friend Lord Desai.
Consolidated Fund Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
As your Lordships know, the Belfast agreement set up an independent commission to make recommendations for future policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships will be familiar with the report of that commission, commonly called the Patten report. Subsequent discussions with Northern Ireland political parties during the summer of 2001 brought about a revised implementation plan, published that August. That plan contained a number of commitments to legislate to amend the provisions of the 2000 Act more fully to reflect the Patten report. In the main, this Bill represents the product of those commitments.
454
Since the passing of the 2000 Act, some notable advances have been made. I touch upon them briefly. They include a new Policing Board, with cross-community participation; a new badge, unanimously recommended by the Policing Board; the first annual policing plan, produced on 18th March by that board; the production and issuance of a draft code of ethics by the board; and an Oversight Commissioner, Mr Tom Constantine, appointed to oversee the process of change. The commissioner has published six reports so far, the last only last week.
Additionally, the recruitment campaign, critically important, has produced a 35 per cent Catholic response. More than 580 new recruits have joined the service, and the first trainees brought in under the 50:50 provisions graduated on 5th April, taking the new oath.
Special Branch and Crime Branch are together under a single ACC. District policing partnerships have been launched as a process, and they will be set up early next year. The new Police Fund was set up early this year to help police officers and police widows directly affected by terrorism; more than £5 million has already been paid out to widows and families. I shall not be alone in recording the Government's gratitude to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and admiration for the way in which it works.
The key elements of the Bill are as follows. The first is to strengthen the role of the Policing Board and to clarify the relationship with the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. That is consistent with the Patten vision for a locally accountable police service. It requires the Secretary of State, therefore, to consult the board with a view to reaching agreement when drawing up both long-term policing objectives and codes of practice. That is Clause 1.
Clause 2 indicates that, in turn, the board must take account of the Secretary of State's objectives in framing the policing plan.
There is an obligation on the Chief Constable to take account of those long-term objectives provided only in so far as this is consistent with the board's policing plan, as indicated in Clause 16.
The Bill gives the Policing Board greater flexibility on the frequency and spacing of board public meetings—Clause 3—as well as more flexibility in the publication of its performance summary—Clauses 6 and 7. Those changes were made at the specific request of the board in the light of its experience over the past year. We were more than content to bow to that advice, to accept it and to act upon it.
The Bill contains a rather technical provision to split off funding which relates to the Police Service of Northern Ireland Pension Scheme from other Policing Board funding. This is to provide clarity on how money is spent—Clauses 4 and 5. Clause 8 amends provisions on the Chief Constable's general duty to report to the board. It places a general obligation on the Chief Constable to supply the board with whatever information it may reasonably require in order to carry out its functions, subject to the same safeguards as apply to the formal reports and inquiries

455
procedures—Clause 17; and it drops the fourth ground of referral in relation to reports and inquiries, dealing with information that could adversely affect the detection of crime. The purpose of this is to bring the terms of referral more in line with Patten's recommendations—Clause 8.
The Bill also amends the second ground of referral from "personal" to "personnel" in order, again, to bring the terminology more in line with the Patten report. It also safeguards disclosure which would be likely to put an individual in danger—Clause 19.
The Bill amends the threshold of board members required to vote for an inquiry. This will be reduced from 10 to eight, provided it is the majority of those present and voting—Clause 10. The Bill gives the Police Ombudsman the power to investigate police practices and policies, rather than, as at present, simply to research them. This is in addition to her current powers. That particular clause attracted a certain amount of criticism from parties on both sides of the community. The Government have therefore reflected carefully—as we ought to—and it is my intention to table later this week an amendment that would: remove the barrier to the ombudsman's access to information, but retain existing legislative safeguards relating to inappropriate public disclosure; clarify that the power to investigate relates to current policies and practices; and make clear that the ombudsman is not expected to investigate polices and practices dealing with conduct falling within the remit of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
I have discussed those proposals in general terms on two recent occasions with the ombudsman and understand that she is content with them. It is worth emphasising that the focus of her work is on police conduct—Part 7 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. The board does not have the same focus on that aspect. Both bodies are proving themselves well able to work alongside the other elements of the policing architecture. We therefore see no need to create a statutory obligation to devise a protocol.
The Bill places an obligation on the Policing Board to secure representativeness in appointing independent members to district policing partnerships—Clause 12—and clarifies the disqualification for membership of a DPP—Clause 13. It also allows district councils to insure and indemnify DPP members—Clause 14.
Many of your Lordships will have seen the "text for consideration" which the Government published a few weeks ago alongside some of the draft clauses that make up the Bill before us today. That is an important step. So far as I am aware, it is a "first", although it is not the only "first" that we have had in the context of Northern Ireland legislation. Many noble Lords were grateful for, and assisted by, the very full and helpful discussion that we had with the Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Paul Murphy, a few days ago.
The Government made a commitment in the revised Implementation Plan to review whether the existing powers of the Belfast sub-groups were sufficient and whether the bar on ex-prisoners being considered for membership of district policing partnerships remained
456
necessary. In October 2000 my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton made clear that the Government hope to see the day dawn when sensitivities such as this—which I fully understand—recede.
The Government have concluded that the time is not yet right to make these changes. As the Prime Minister and others have made clear in another place and outside Parliament, they could be considered only in the context of acts of completion on the part of all paramilitaries. However, we thought it right—I hope that your Lordships will consider this a decent step to have taken—to set out how in such circumstances we would be prepared to legislate so that everyone in Northern Ireland and those in your Lordships' House in particular with an interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland could be clear about our position. This allows an opportunity for full debate on checks and balances and I hope demonstrates that we are serious in our long-term objectives. But I do not— and I hope that I never have done—underestimate the sensitivities which I recognise and to which I have paid full regard.
Through the Bill we are also making clear that policing with the community is to be one of the core policing principles, along with the human rights based approach to policing enshrined in the new code of ethics—Clause 15. The Bill will enable the Chief Constable to make fixed-term appointments at ranks from sergeant to superintendent in order to facilitate secondments with policing powers from non-UK police forces—Clause 18. That is a particularly important tool to be given to the new Chief Constable who I believe has settled to his work admirably well.
At the request of the Chief Constable and with the support of the board, the Bill gives the Chief Constable greater flexibility in the deployment of civilian staff under his control—Clauses 20 to 23. These measures will allow him to use civilian staff on some of the more routine policing duties, such as escorting detainees and operating custody suites, thus freeing up officers for front-line duties. I say not for the first time that Northern Ireland is leading the way. I hope that in the rest of the United Kingdom we can learn useful lessons from the experience of the Chief Constable and the board. Those powers are in line with changes under the Police Reform Act 2002, which the House recently approved.
The Bill makes it an offence to impersonate a civilian support officer—Clause 23. It authorises a registered healthcare professional, instead of a doctor, to take an intimate sample from a person in police custody—Clause 24. That is just common sense.
I hope that your Lordships will accept the following remarks. If there is any amendment or suggestion that is consistent with the underlying spirit of the Bill, I undertake to give it every consideration. I have said that on previous occasions in the context of Northern Ireland. I hope that I have been faithful to that undertaking. We did extremely good work on the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 to take just one example. I must not use the word "mulish" but

457
there had been some resistance in another place over which we triumphed with our superior grasp of these matters.
I hope that the measure will constitute a co-operative effort. Some noble Lords may consider that this is not a world shattering Bill. It is not. We should seek modest Bills that are suitable to the increasingly stable community for which we all hope. I genuinely look forward with interest to hearing your Lordships' contributions. At the end of today's debate I shall suggest that this is an appropriate Bill for Grand Committee.
I hope that I may trespass on your Lordships' patience for a further moment. Six Northern Ireland orders are to be considered this afternoon. Some noble Lords have said that we may not appear to have a full opportunity to deal with these matters as we are—as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said—in a sense the trustee for an Assembly that is no longer sitting. I shall do my best to ensure that alternative means of dealing with them are made available. That may even constitute a Grand Committee dealing only with Northern Ireland orders, which would be a "first" in this House. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for setting out the main provisions of the Bill and the Government's reasons for introducing it. I pledge my support to work with the Government and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal to improve the Bill and to get the best Bill we can for Northern Ireland. It is certainly due to this House, and to the efforts of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal behind the scenes, that we achieved the notable victories in the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill to which he referred. I hope that it is a fact that that legislation deprived one of the political parties, at least, of 20,000 or more votes, as I read in local newspapers.
Nobody who has even a passing interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland can fail to recognise the huge changes in policing that have taken place in recent years. Nor is there any doubt that policing is probably—I think certainly—the most contentious and divisive issue affecting the political process.
We are all familiar with the changes brought about over the past few years by the Belfast agreement and, subsequently, the Patten report. However, this is not the occasion to reopen the debates that took place over Patten and the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 during its passage through Parliament in 2000. The position of the Official Opposition was made quite clear at the time. While we accepted much of Patten and the Bill—the Mandelson Bill, as it was dubbed at the time—there were areas on which we strongly disagreed with the Government and on which we tabled a number of amendments.
458
Those areas were not confined to matters of symbolic importance, such as the cap badge and the name of the police service. They also covered areas such as maintaining the operational independence of the Chief Constable and ensuring that convicted terrorists did not serve as members of district policing partnerships. All that is a matter of record. What was never in doubt, however, was our total backing for the new Police Service of Northern Ireland and our determination that the PSNI should be every bit as effective in the fight against terrorism as its distinguished predecessor, the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Once again I pay the fullest tribute to the men and women of the RUC and the PSNI who selflessly, professionally and impartially have sought to uphold the law and protect the people of Northern Ireland.
I also welcome a number of positive developments that have taken place over the past three years. Probably the most important development is that, for the first time, both the SDLP and the Roman Catholic hierarchy have endorsed the PSNI, with the SDLP taking up its seats on the new Policing Board. Given Sinn Fein's continuing opposition to the police, that was never going to be an easy thing for them to do. I commend them for their actions.
Overall, the Policing Board, on which the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, serve with such distinction, has functioned well. The way in which it handled the highly sensitive issue of devising a new cap badge for the PSNI, while surprising many, ensured that the new board got off to the right start.
Yet there is no doubt that, set against this, enormous difficulties still exist.
Morale among police officers is at an all time low, with around one in 10 officers currently absent through sickness at any one time. Police numbers are already below the levels envisaged by Patten in a much more benign security scenario than the one we have at present. During the summer we saw the police stretched to the limit as they tried to deal with sectarian violence in north and east Belfast. Both the then acting Chief Constable, Colin Cramphorn, and the new Chief Constable, Hugh Orde, made it clear that without the full-time reserve they simply could not cope. In that context, I welcome the Government's decision to agree with the Opposition and, on this occasion, to see sense by renewing the contracts of the full-time reserve.
As an aside, yesterday I talked to Hugh Orde, who told me of his personal experiences on foot patrol with officers from the full-time reserve in various parts of the country. He commented on how professional they are and how well they know their districts, which he gave as an excellent example of community policing.
In addition to the difficulties to which I referred, there is the continuing refusal by Sinn Fein, despite its support for the Belfast agreement, to back the PSNI. Last year, Gerry Adams said that Sinn Fein's attitude to the new PSNI was exactly the same as it was to the old RUC—surprise, surprise. We had evidence of that earlier this year when the chairman of Sinn Fein disgracefully refused to condemn the attempted

459
murder of a young Catholic police recruit in Ballymena. That is unacceptable behaviour for any political party, but even more so for one that has had two of its members serving as Ministers in the Northern Ireland Government and, no doubt, aspires to serve in the Executive again.
Regrettably, intimidation, which was the principal obstacle to Catholic recruitment to the old RUC, remains a fact of life in Northern Ireland. As the Chief Constable stated only last week, the lack of Catholic applicants to the PSNI, combined with the 50:50 recruitment policy, is seriously hindering his efforts to increase the civilian staff in police stations and to get uniformed officers out from behind desks and on to the streets where they are so desperately needed. That was also mentioned in my conversation with Hugh Orde yesterday.
Sadly, as a result of those problems, the laudable aspiration contained in the Patten report to take the politics out of policing has not been realised. In fact, the reverse has happened. Policing is a more highly charged political issue than at any point during the past 30 years. Unionists, with a great deal of justification, feel deep hurt at many of the changes that have taken place. At the same time nationalists and republicans demand ever more reforms in order to satisfy their political agendas.
It is in order to accommodate nationalist and, to some extent, republican criticisms of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000—the so-called Mandelson Act—that this Bill is before your Lordships' House today. The process has its origins in the Weston Park talks of July 2001, when the then Secretary of State, John Reid, gave assurances to the SDLP and Sinn Fein that their grievances would be considered again in the context of the revised Patten implementation plan published the following month. There is no secret or dispute about that. As the SDLP boasted in a press release on 25th November:
"The SDLP won detailed commitments at Weston Park to new policing legislation to ensure that the legislative framework for policing in Northern Ireland fully reflects the requirements of the Patten Report".
That tells us a great deal about how the Government have approached the political process and conducted their relations with the parties since the agreement was made in 1998. Following the initial consultation on Patten, the then Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson, went out of his way to reassure unionists. In his Statement in another place on 19th January 2000, he specifically downgraded the role of the district policing partnerships and deferred any decision on giving them powers to raise money to buy in additional policing services. Then, in the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, he introduced a number of safeguards in the relationship between the Secretary of State, the Policing Board and the Chief Constable, particularly in relation to reports and inquiries. He also introduced the disqualification of those with serious criminal convictions from serving as independent members of DPPs.
Now Her Majesty's Government are going in the other direction. They plan to reduce the grounds on which the Chief Constable can appeal to the Secretary
460
of State to block reports and inquiries and to make it easier for the Policing Board to initiate them. They have indicated their willingness, in certain circumstances, to end existing disqualification with regard to the DPPs. After the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 was passed, nationalists accused Mandelson of "gutting" Patten. Now, in order to satisfy nationalists, are the Government -gutting" Mandelson?
Having said that, I believe that the vast majority of the Bill is non-contentious and has the support of the Opposition, although that would certainly not have been the case had the Government included the draft provisions relating to the DPPs, as I understand was once their intention. We have some areas of concern, however.
First, as I indicated, we do not support the amendments to Sections 59 and 60 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 made by Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill. The effect would be to remove entirely the right of the Chief Constable to refer to the Secretary of State a request by the Policing Board for a report, or the setting up of an inquiry, on the grounds that
"it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".
In our view, that could seriously undermine the effectiveness and operational independence of the Chief Constable. He would be under a statutory obligation to provide reports to the board relating to the conduct of ongoing investigations, while the board would have the power to initiate inquiries into them. That cannot be right and I would be interested to hear the noble and learned Lord's justification for that change.
Secondly, as if that were not bad enough, Clause 10 of the Bill reduces the number of members of the board required to launch an inquiry under Section 60 of the 2000 Act from 10 to eight. We believe that out of a board of 19 members, it is perfectly reasonable and proper for the "required number" of those present and voting to be at least 10. The reality is that that it; an unwarranted concession designed to make it easier for nationalists to launch inquiries which, taken with the reduction of the grounds on which the Chief Constable can refer such inquiries to the Secretary of State, should be opposed.
Those are our main areas of concern. There are others, such as the changes in Clause 2, which we believe give the board too much discretion to depart from the long-term policing objectives set out by the Secretary of State. We will want to explore that further in Committee.
Finally, there are the clauses that are not in the Bill but which were published by the Government as "text for consideration". They relate to two issues raised by Sinn Fein at Weston Park: the disqualification of former terrorist prisoners serving as independent members of DPPs and the powers of the four Belfast DPP sub-groups. We welcome the fact that the Government have at long last followed our advice and, on this occasion, not made yet another unilateral

461
concession to Sinn Fein. Like the Government, we do not rule out those changes for all time but we are emphatically opposed to them before we have had evidence of what the Government call "acts of completion". In our view, "acts of completion" has to include both decommissioning and disbandment by a paramilitary organisation. Until such time as that happens it would, in our view, be wholly wrong for former terrorist prisoners to be put into positions whereby they can sit in judgment on the police.
The inclusion of those clauses would almost certainly have caused my party to advise against giving the Bill a Second Reading; we would not have supported it. However, as it stands, we support the Bill as a whole and, as I said earlier, we look forward to working to improve it.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his customary clear exposition of the Bill.
The Bill as it stands is a rather odd one. It simply consists of a number of relatively minor tidying-up proposals, although I particularly welcome the provision that more precisely defines the powers of the ombudsman. Such housekeeping is commendable so far as it goes but it hardly provides a raison d'être for the legislative priority being accorded to it. As it is laid out, it lacks any unifying theme and there seems little ostensible reason for any urgency. It is, to use the well-worn cliché, very much "Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark".
The Bill is an example of portmanteau primary legislation that provides for any amount of secondary legislation as and when Her Majesty's Government deem it prudent to introduce that. In the ordinary course of events we on these Benches would vigorously oppose that approach on principle. This Government, perhaps more than most, have sought recourse to such devices. Secondary legislation, I was taught, was meant to be reserved so that relatively minor and non-contentious changes could be made fairly quickly.
More than 40 years ago, when I sat at his feet, Professor William A. Robson—that great exponent and protagonist of administrative law—perhaps too easily persuaded me that secondary legislation was a vital component of modern government and particularly so for the efficient administration of the welfare state. However, the extent to which all governments have abused the device has revised my opinion. Secondary legislation is increasingly used to get through quite major policies with the minimum of public scrutiny. The extensive employment of orders and statutory instruments has increasingly lent credence to the views advanced by Robson's arch opponent. Lord Chief Justice Hewart's prescient forebodings were that the inevitable bacterial growth in secondary legislation would lead to the steady attrition of Parliament's powers relative to those of the Executive. That, unfortunately, has been amply proved.
462
Parliament, therefore, and especially your Lordships' House, must be ever vigilant in trying to prevent inappropriate reliance on secondary legislation. That said, I have to admit that in the exceptional circumstances of Northern Ireland, a case can be made out for the way in which this Bill is presented. It could facilitate a number of desirable provisions coming into law, subject to what, I trust, would be rigorous safeguards. Those provisions are clearly laid out by the Secretary of State in the "text for consideration" that accompanies this Bill. I say at once that that precedent, as the Lord Privy Seal rightly called it, is highly commendable. I congratulate the Secretary of State on being so open and honest in his aims. He could so easily have sought the passage of an apparently innocuous Bill and then later introduced additional and major amendments to it by means of orders. Instead, he has been totally open and at the same time—and perhaps paradoxically—highly politically skilful. He has advertised what could happen if and when the circumstances arise in order for the Patten report to be more fully implemented. That is, if Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA unequivocally opt wholeheartedly for democracy and renounce all forms of militarism and violence, substantial amendments could then be made to the Act that will follow the completed passage of this Bill. They would enable Sinn Fein to join the Policing Board and the district policing partnerships, which is what those of goodwill ardently seek.
The essence of the Bill—its real significance—lies in the "text for consideration". My noble friends Lady Harris of Richmond and Lord Shutt of Greetland will deal in Committee with some of the specific provisions in the Bill. At this stage, I want to focus on the "text for consideration" because the Bill can be read only in that context.
As I have said, almost everyone would welcome Sinn Fein's full participation in the Policing Board and the district policing partnerships once it has fully rejected all forms of violence. That is the quid pro quo. Among other benefits, that would, I hope, lead to many more Catholic recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein's endorsement of the PSNI and its related structures is vital and many of us have been encouraging it to take the final crucial step. That said, however, it is equally vital that the conditions contained in the "text for consideration" concerning the five-year period since the discharge of any sentence for a criminal act and the declaration against terrorism are properly enforced. It is relatively easy to see that the five-year provision is implemented but the declaration is more problematic, especially with regard to subsequent monitoring for any breaches. I should be obliged if the noble and learned Lord could offer some indication how, in practice, the Government see breaches being dealt with. As I read it, the Policing Board has the ultimate responsibility, but I can see the discharge of that responsibility being a protracted and often contentious process. Any alleged breach will be a very "hot potato" issue, which will invite the fiercest engagement from all sides and which has all the potential of spilling over beyond the ambit

463
of the board. I think that that aspect will need much more attention if it formally comes before your Lordships' House.
Finally, I appeal to the Ulster Unionists and their close allies on other Benches not to adopt a negative approach to this Bill and the "text for consideration". They have continually challenged Sinn Fein and the IRA to renounce violence and intimidation for ever. The Bill invites Sinn Fein to do precisely that, with the inducement of the undertakings given in the "text for consideration". The prospects of those undertakings reveal an adroit political appreciation which one has come to associate with the new Secretary of State.
Whatever their reservations, the unionists should see this as a very important opportunity for them to put Sinn Fein and the IRA to the final test: if Mr Gerry Adams and his followers balk at it, the unionists' suspicions will have been proved correct; if, however, the challenge held out to Sinn Fein by the Government is grasped, then the acceptance of a wholly democratic approach to resolving political differences, which is what the unionists have always demanded, will have been achieved and Northern Ireland will be back on a peaceful course.
The Liberal Democrats support the Bill and, because of the exceptional circumstances of Northern Ireland, congratulate the Government on the imaginative and wholly open way that they have approached its parliamentary introduction.

European Council, Copenhagen
3.40 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on the European Council.
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council, which took place in Copenhagen on 12th and 13th December.
"Negotiations were successfully concluded to admit to membership of the European Union 10 countries from eastern and central Europe and Cyprus and Malta. We hope that Romania and Bulgaria will be ready to follow in 2007.
"Today, we take it for granted that the 10 countries are all democratic nations living by the same values as the rest of Europe. But, to anyone who remembers the Hungarian uprising of 1956, the Prague spring of 1968 or the imposition of military rule in Poland in 1981, the transformation of the countries concerned from tyranny to democracy and now to full EU membership is a huge achievement of which Europe and Britain can be proud.
"We have long been the champions of European enlargement. The negotiations for membership began during the British presidency of the European Union in 1998. I should like to pay tribute
464
particularly to the Danish presidency and the Commission, who have brought these negotiations to a successful conclusion.
"Details of the final package are annexed to the conclusions of the meeting. Membership will bring immediate economic benefits to the candidates. It will create a single market of 450 million people. Our trade has increased nearly 10 times as fast with the new countries as with the rest of the world. Fourteen thousand UK firms export to eastern and central Europe. Membership will boost the GDP of those countries by nearly 1.5 per cent and our own by up to nearly £2 billion.
"The new member states are countries which have only recently rediscovered their national identities. They, like us, will want the further integration of the Union to be firmly rooted in the democratic accountability of the nation state. They will be our allies in developing a European Union on those lines.
"For some time Turkey has been knocking on the door of the European Union. The response of the European Union has rightly been to encourage a closer economic and political relationship but to say that full membership could happen only when Turkey met the necessary human rights criteria. In the past year, Turkey has made enormous strides by abolishing the death penalty and adopting a range of human rights laws. The new Turkish Government have promised a detailed legislative timetable to accelerate that progress. I believe it is massively in our interests to see Turkey as a modern democratic partner in Europe. For that reason, I have been urging our partners to offer Turkey a date to open negotiations for membership provided that the so-called 'Copenhagen criteria' are met. I am pleased to report to the House that that was achieved in Copenhagen. The Commission will report on Turkey's progress and if, in December 2004, on a recommendation from the Commission the European Council decides that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, then accession negotiations with Turkey will open without delay.
"This agreement has contributed to a better climate on the long-standing Cyprus dispute. The Secretary-General of the United Nations and his Special Representative, Mr De Soto, have been tireless in their efforts, as has our own Special Representative, Lord Hannay. A settlement remains within reach. I would urge all parties to continue their efforts to find a comprehensive settlement which would allow a reunited Cyprus to join the European Union, as set out in the conclusions of the European Council.
"We were also able to resolve differences between Turkey and Greece which have delayed the agreement between the European Union and NATO necessary to allow the implementation of a European security and defence policy. We have now established the essential linkage with NATO, which means that, where NATO is not involved, the European Union can undertake peacekeeping

465
operations using NATO planning with the option of NATO headquarters and NATO assets as well. As a result, the European Union stands ready to take over the military operation in Macedonia in consultation with NATO and to lead a military operation in Bosnia following SFOR.
"The European Council issued a declaration on the Middle East in advance of the Quartet ministerial meeting in Washington. The Quartet brings together the EU, the United States, Russia and the UN, and its meeting on 20th December will take us a further step forward. But, in the short term, progress on the Israeli side will be limited by the general election campaign in Israel.
"I believe that we should use the intervening period to maximise the chances of successful implementation of the roadmap once a new Israeli government are in place. This means continuing to do what we can to secure an end to violence and to reverse the deteriorating humanitarian situation.
"It also means ensuring that Palestinian reform is effective. To this end, I can announce today that I am inviting leading Palestinians to come to Britain in January for a conference, along with members of the Quartet and other countries from the region closely involved in supporting the reform effort. It will discuss progress on reform and look at how the international community can help. It is in the interests of both Palestinians and Israelis that these reform efforts succeed so that we can make a reality of President Bush's vision of two states—Israel and Palestine—living side by side in peace and security.
"The European Council also issued a declaration on Iraq, giving its full and unequivocal support for Security Council Resolution 1441 and urging Iraq to seize this final opportunity to comply with its international obligations.
"Finally, we speak against the background of serious problems confronting our fishing industry. In the past 30 years, cod stocks in the North Sea have fallen from 250,000 to 35,000 tonnes. If fishing continues at the present rate, there is a risk of there being no viable cod fishing left. That is why the European Commission has suggested a reduction in fishing of 80 per cent to enable the cod stock to recover to its absolute minimum viable level. Scientists believe that the safe minimum is 150,000 tonnes.
"We share the objective of enabling the fish stocks to recover but we believe that much more moderate measures could still deliver recovery while maintaining a viable industry. I have talked extensively both with the President of the Commission at Copenhagen and with Commissioner Fischler previously. And fishery Ministers are meeting in Brussels at the moment to reach agreement on the issue.
"The UK fishing industry has benefited over the past year from £36 million funding to support adjustment through decommissioning. This includes the Scottish Executive's action to help to
466
preserve fish stocks and to ensure the industry's long-term viability with a £27 million aid package. If there are further cuts arising from the ongoing negotiations in Brussels, the UK Government and the Scottish Executive stand ready to help the fishing communities affected. I will meet leaders of the industry in the New Year and financial assistance will be made available if necessary. But the priority for now must be to get a fair deal for our fishing industry.
"This summit was a remarkable achievement. It redefines the future shape of Europe. It describes a future in which Europe is reunited—a Europe of proud and sovereign nation states which work together economically, socially and politically in their common interest. The prospect of Turkey's membership has even more dramatic implications. A nation, which borders the Arab world, which is Muslim and which none the less is striking out on a path leading to liberal democracy, is set, in time, to join the traditional nations of Europe. The implications for the future of Europe are profound. In time, all these new countries will be part of the European economy, part of monetary union, part of European defence and part of the European political system.
"For us in Britain, the implications are equally profound. Given this new Europe taking shape, it is our job to be part of it, to be a leading power within it and to understand the degree to which our national interest is bound up with it. Isolation from Europe in this new world is absolute folly. That is why we shall continue to fight for our interests but recognise that ultimately they are best served inside the EU and not on its margins".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. I hope that he will forgive me for not being in the Chamber at the start of the Statement. Clearly, the Second Reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill proceeded faster than I had anticipated.
I begin by echoing the Prime Minister's praise for the outstanding role of the Danish presidency in achieving a historic result. Denmark laid bare the canard that a state must be in the euro-zone to be a moulder of Europe's future. Does the Leader of the House realise that widening the union brings into being a long-held ambition of the Conservative Party? That bold and statesmanlike response to the collapse of communism in Europe was first advocated by a Conservative government well over a decade ago. The only disappointing factor in a remarkable summit is that it took so long to convert that vision into reality. After the summit the EU must not allow bureaucracy and uniformity to obstruct progress to a wider Europe. If ever it were time to celebrate the diversity of Europe's nations and their rich and varied traditions, that time is surely now.

467
Turning to other matters, is it not deeply distressing and to be regretted that yet again at this summit nothing was done to advance reform of the discredited common agricultural policy? Also today we hear more bleak news for Scottish fishermen, as outlined in the Statement. Can the noble and learned Lord describe what the Prime Minister did to raise the CFP at the summit following his recent pledge in Scotland to take the cause of UK fishing up "to the very top"? If one looks at the presidency conclusions, which I recommend to the House, it does not appear to be mentioned anywhere. Was the CFP even discussed in Copenhagen?
EU leaders have taken over a decade to respond to the historic challenge of the collapse of communism. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that we must not countenance further foot-dragging and delay over Turkey, an issue perhaps of equal strategic and political importance? We have long advocated a more open stance towards Turkey. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the Prime Minister once again lined up with Mr Berlusconi as his key ally, but, as on CAP reform, was again thwarted by Mr Chirac and Mr Schroder. What does the noble and learned Lord make of that? Where is the top-table influence in that?
Turkey is a key NATO ally, a democracy and a secular Muslim nation. It is a proud nation. Was the Prime Minister right, therefore, to argue that it should be given a fixed date for opening negotiations on entry rather than the vague promises of "without delay" after a date over two years away? For all the Prime Minister's efforts, which we strongly support, no firm date was given. That was a pity. Let us hope that it was not a historic missed opportunity. Who knows how the world, and the Muslim world in particular, will change over the course of the next two years. Could even more preparatory work relating to possible accession be carried out before December 2004?
On Cyprus, am I right in reading paragraph 12 of the conclusions as effectively confirming a Greek veto on the terms of the accession of Cyprus and specifically on the place of the Turkish Cypriot community? Can the noble and learned Lord set out the Government's view on prospects of a comprehensive Cyprus settlement by February 2003 as envisaged in the conclusions? Will the Foreign Secretary be involved in that process?
We welcome progress on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. But was it not extraordinary that the summit signalled a search for closer relations with Belarus, a nation that by any reckoning is near the foot of the human rights league?
Annex I of the conclusions forecasts spending of over £1 billion on the administrative costs of accession in the next three years. What will that be spent on? And what will be the UK share of such costs?
After detention by the Spanish navy of a North Korean ship carrying ballistic missiles to the Middle East, why is there no mention of the threat of North Korea in the conclusions? Was there any discussion of that affair? Does the EU support US action to contain
468
Korea? The communique includes no expression of support for US policy on Iraq? I worry about the take-all, give-nothing attitude of some EU nations to the United States. Often it is laced with anti-Americanism and shows a failure to understand the nature of the terrorist war against America.
On transport, I note progress made in discussions about the problems caused by the passage of heavy lorries through Austria's alpine passes. Did the Prime Minister take the chance to raise the equivalent funnelling of heavy lorries through Kent? While on the environment can the noble and learned Lord comment on the special concession given to Estonia to hunt bears? Did the UK Government agree to that concession? Did they in fact agree to continued hunting of bears, lynxes and beavers in Estonia while pursuing the ban on hunting of foxes at home?
Finally, the conclusions say that the summit heard a presentation from Mr Giscard d'Estaing on the EU convention. It does not tell us what was said. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord has in his brief a copy of the key points made by the Prime Minister in those discussions?
The summit has rightly, for once, been classed as historic. We congratulate the Government on their part in it. But we should all be clear that this wider Europe, to which we all look forward, will demand imaginative and far-reaching EU reform. That reform must point to a far lighter touch from Brussels: far better accountability of the resources spent; a real commitment to deregulation and subsidiarity; and an end to the top-down harmonisation of recent decades. I believe that only then can we look forward to a united Europe that will give prosperity to all its people.
3.56 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is delightful to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, apparently joining the ranks of the euro enthusiasts.
By any standards this is a remarkably historic moment. It is absolutely right to give credit to the Danish presidency for what was undoubtedly a subtle and successful negotiating period. It is also right and proper to give praise to our own Prime Minister for the way in which this remarkable summit achieved the conclusion of expansion. A whole new group of countries—10 of them—are coming into the European Union. If we were not British, we would recognise this as a tremendous, historic moment and would perhaps be drinking champagne rather than sitting quietly listening to a Statement. I repeat that it is a remarkable achievement. It brings forward the re-uniting of the whole of Europe, East and West, and it brings within the realm of democratic countries with a full recognition of human rights countries that have not enjoyed that situation for the past 50 years. I underline the fact that this is a day for celebration.
I have several questions for the noble and learned Lord. The first concerns the budget in Annex I. Is he satisfied that the provision made for dealing with

469
nuclear and environmental pollution is adequate at 125 million euros a year for three years, given the extraordinary degree of environmental and nuclear pollution to be found in countries like Poland and, for that matter, the Czech Republic? Those are serious issues. Many of us are worried that the countries concerned do not have the resources to deal with those problems quickly.
My second question concerns Turkey. I agree that Turkey's commencement of her route to full membership is a historic initiative. However, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. On these Benches we believe that in relation to Turkey precisely the right outcome has been achieved. Turkey is now welcomed as a candidate country, but she has to meet certain clear conditions before she can enter into the process of becoming a full member. That is not very different from what was the case for the central and eastern European countries at the beginning of the process some eight years ago. To many, it seems right and proper that Turkey, which has embarked well on a process of trying to recognise the importance of human rights and democratic institutions, should be asked to take one further step: the reduction of military influence on Turkish politics and the separation of civilian authorities from military authorities. As many Members of the House know, that has not yet been accomplished.
With regard to Cyprus, I echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde: it would be much better if Cyprus could be reunited before entering the European Union in 2004. There is reason for hope. The latest reports suggest that Mr Denktash is being put under some pressure by Ankara as well as Brussels and therefore may be able to reconsider what has been long, bitter and unhelpful resistance to any attempt to unite that beautiful but still troubled island.
Thirdly, with regard to the issue of military commitment to the European security and defence policy, we on these Benches welcome the removal of the Turkish veto on the use of NATO military resources for the purposes of the European security and defence programme. However, can the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House assure us that the British contribution falls within the resources available to the Ministry of Defence, given that there will now be a commitment to a military position in Bosnia and Macedonia, and that there could conceivably be further demands on the ESDP? Having said that, we welcome the remarkable progress made as a result of the NATO-EU agreement a few days ago. That is the good news.
I turn now to two final questions that are perhaps less good news. The first concerns fishing, to which the noble and learned Lord referred—indeed, it takes up a substantial part of the Statement. The key issue is surely not what individual politicians, however eminent, may believe about fishing; it is whether there is a consensus among biologists, ecologists and fisheries experts about the true position with regard to
470
stock. One cannot turn back the truth. It is impossible to disregard what is happening to fish stocks in the North Sea and elsewhere.
Can the Leader of the House assure us that there is a consensus, at least among scientists in Britain, about the actual position and how much fishing can be risked and afforded, because to kill the future for our children is not a good political answer to what is an extremely difficult question? We all recognise the pain to fishing communities in this country and elsewhere. In that context, I point out that the EU must do more serious work on clearing the maritime channels. We have now had three serious accidents in a short space of time, each of which has affected the fauna of the sea, often with disastrous consequences.
Lastly, I turn to a serious and unfortunate event that has occurred since Copenhagen. At Copenhagen, the British Government and others were able to welcome the arrival of the so-called road map for Israel and Palestine and to look forward with hope to the meeting scheduled for 20th December. In the past 48 hours, that has collapsed with the withdrawal of United States support for the road map and the indication that she will not be willing further to consider how that matter can be advanced until after the Israeli elections. That position was pressed hard by Israel, opposed by the United Nations and the European Union.
If the European Union is to mean what it should mean for peace in the world, it must stand up clearly on issues such as this for what it believes to be right, as a more independent voice than that of almost any other major powerful grouping in the world. What hopes does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House have of being able to resume a strict and determined schedule of meetings between the so-called "Quad" on the vital issue of stopping violence by the Palestinians and settlements by the Israelis, so that at last we may see in that troubled area a chance for peace at a moment when the Middle East is moving into turmoil?
4.4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for what has been said from both Opposition Front Benches. It is always a pleasure when a sinner repents. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, reflecting on the past weekend, it is a truly historic occasion. It is such an historic occasion that it only requires the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to join the Damascene conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for us all to go home content and happy and be safe in our beds tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke about the common agricultural policy, which has been a knotty problem for many years. I well remember the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Henley, constantly being attacked on reform of the CAP. I think that their phrase was, "Of course, the Government are not complacent". So in answer to the noble Lord's question today I say, "Of course, the Government are not complacent". I entirely echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said. In the longer term, the

471
accession of many of the eastern European countries with notoriously long embedded problems with agriculture will prove an opportunity.
One does not want to be over-dramatic on these occasions, but if in 1848 we had been having a debate in and about the year of revolutions, it would have been difficult for us to make the intellectual leap that is wanted—and the imaginative leap, which is more difficult—to recognise what has happened. It is truly extraordinary. Did the Prime Minister raise the CAP? Yes, although it was not central to the discussions at Copenhagen.
Questions were asked about Turkey. Turkey has been extremely successful. The date of 2004 has been given. I know that not all of our friends and colleagues in Turkey were entirely satisfied with that. I speak from personal knowledge: the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and I have been present on occasions on which that understandable impatience has been expressed. But I commend to the House what was said by one of the Turkish leaders: "He who is angry in politics loses the argument". That is a good text for much of the legislation to which we shall return when the debate on the Statement is finished. It has an enormous amount of worth. If someone in Turkey can say that, we should pay careful to heed to it.
In response to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we shall continue throughout to support Turkey's efforts to make itself able to be a full and fitting partner. As I said on a previous occasion—although I must not tease my friends in the United States too much—the United States wanted Turkey to be in a favourable position. A necessary precondition for that was the abolition of the death penalty.
There was no Greek veto on Cyprus. As paragraph 12 of the conclusions states, unanimity is required. What did the Prime Minister say? He said generally, in the Giscard D'Estaing context, that enlargement will make the UK, the EU and the new members wealthier. It will bring new trade and investment opportunities for the UK. It will transform Europe for the better. It will transform the candidate countries for the better. The UK and the EU have benefited from those countries that have chosen the European path. Fundamentally, it shows that the founding principle of the European Union—that peaceful reconciliation is better than war—remains valid.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, moved me almost to tears about the bears in Estonia—a situation with which I was of course wholly familiar. Apparently, there has been no special concession for bears in Estonia. But it is not all bad news: there was one on the Arctic lynx—apparently, that is "lynx", not some sort of railway junction.
I turn to the costs of enlargement. Again, the Prime Minister's negotiations at Berlin in 1999 mean that our abatement continues; there has been no challenge to that. On the Convention on the Future of Europe generally, M Giscard d'Estaing simply gave a progress report. No decisions were taken, nor would one have expected them on such an occasion.
472
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked me about spending on nuclear matters. There is additional money besides that mentioned in the conclusions, such as contributions to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development—funds for decommissioning. The moneys to which she referred relate to the period up to 2006. Substantial further sums will be required, when the decommissioning costs are better known.
I will say a general word, as I am up to the end of the 20 minutes. These are extraordinary achievements, and I do not confine them to the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary. They are enormous achievements in the fulfilment of the European dream. I go back right to the beginning of the Statement, in which there are one or two historic echoes—Prague, Hungary and Poland. All those historic incidents were not lost in the mists of time. Indeed, so recent are they that all of us present today can remember them with deep shame. If any of us had said, in 1956 or during the Prague Spring, that, one day, Hungary would be free, such a thing would have been regarded as miraculous.
4.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, on these Benches, we welcome the developments in Copenhagen last week and the Statement just read by the noble and learned Lord. As someone with a good deal of Danish blood in my veins, I must say how proud many Danes are to have hosted the EU summit. I happen to have visited the Danish church in London yesterday to preach the sermon. Afterwards, I encountered a great deal of enthusiasm—not for the sermon, but for the events in Copenhagen—from many officials of the Danish community. His Excellency the Danish Ambassador was involved, before his appointment here, in the negotiations that led up to last week's meeting.
I shall comment on two matters: the nature and purpose of union; and the issues surrounding Turkey's membership. Union is a concept that becomes a reality at its best when it is about three things: mutual support, manageability and generosity to the poor who are—shall we say—outside the gates. It becomes stagnant when support shrivels, diversity turns into unproductive cacophony and the poor outside go forgotten. On these Benches, we have every confidence that, for all the problems that the EU experiences, the possibilities for support, manageability and generosity will not become insuperable problems—the Estonian bears mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, included. A glance at Europe's history—eastern and western—makes one gasp with delight at what has been achieved and what we have in prospect.
On these Benches, we want to register some caution about language that describes Europe as exclusively Christian, in contrast to an Islamic beyond. The current international scene notwithstanding, there has been a noble mixing of religious presences in many parts of Europe that goes back many centuries. I must add that it is noble when it is about fruitful co-existence, as was the case in Bosnia until a time within

473
living memory. The cross that I am wearing is a Danish bishop's cross, made in Århus by Hingelberg, a reputable local Jewish firm.
The question of human rights, including religious rights, is a moral court in which we are all called to strive for a better record. It is an issue in respect of which EU members must be reasonably satisfied about future members. It is to be hoped that Turkey will be given membership at some time in the future.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. He was right in the way that he set out his prescription, the third aspect of which was generosity. He spoke, I think, of generosity in the practical—almost logistical—sense of generosity to those who are poorer than us. However, the right reverend Prelate went further and said something that chimed in my mind. Essentially, he spoke of moral generosity towards people who may be different from us—not worse or better, but different and, therefore, of value to us, as we may be to them—when he spoke of Islam. I agree entirely with what he said.
Islam is not a monolith, any more than Christianity is. We are dealing with an application that, first of all, we should welcome. It is an extraordinary tribute to the rest of the European Union that Turkey wishes to join us. We should not be mean-minded or small-hearted about that. In that country, the religion is Islam, but the Government aim to be secular. I repeat that there have been extraordinary advances. They are not perfection achieved, but they are determination displayed and evidenced with regard to the Kurds, to education, to the use of language and broadcasting and—not least important to many of us, though not, I am afraid, to all—to the abolition of the death penalty.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are the Government aware that there are several financial considerations that must be pondered over as a result of the convention? In putting that question, I am put in mind of when I entered politics many years ago. I was always taught that, when evaluating some political action, one had to keep a careful eye, first, on where the money came from and, secondly, where it went. I make that criticism and ask these questions with direct reference to the convention: where is the money coming from, and where will it move?
Over the past two or three years, the British Parliament—and other Parliaments—have virtually abandoned interest in the monetary aspects of the various things that they do. In the Houses of Parliament, we have now even abandoned consideration of the European budget. It gets worse. Are the Government aware that the expenditure that inevitably lies behind every generalised proposal put to the conference must come from somewhere? My guess is that, at the moment, the money comes through virtually unlimited advances from the European Central Bank to the Commission. Nobody knows how much they spend. We are told that so much money is being spent, but nobody says where it comes from. We
474
are just told that Europe will give out so much money. That cannot go on. The money comes from unlimited advances from the European Bank.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I gently remind the House that we are now seven minutes into questions from the Back Benches. The shorter the questions, the more answers we will get.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am always pleased to have long questions.
My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington asked several questions. Where is the money coming from? The present estimates are that, in 2006, enlargement will cost the United Kingdom—I will focus on that question—an extra 200 million euros—about £130 million. That is about £2 per person. I turn my noble friend's general question back on him: what would be the cost of war, not simply in treasure but in human life and misery?
My noble friend is right to say that we should be cautious and that we should improve budgetary and fiscal control in the European Union. He would say that that is long overdue, and, in many ways, I would echo that. On the other hand, we should not lose sight of the great prize that is offered to us.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I welcome the presentation by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal of the Prime Minister's Statement. Also, of course, I welcome the enlargement of the European Union. However, there are several points on which I want to question the noble and learned Lord.
First, as regards the Middle East, following the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, can we be assured that in the European Union we shall not continue to be subject to the policy of the United States of America? Can we be assured that we shall press for the removal of the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories? And, can we be assured that our policy is different from that of the United States, in that we do not seek the removal of President Arafat as a condition for progressing a settlement in the Middle East? That being so, when the Lord Privy Seal announced that shortly we shall be inviting Palestinian leaders to a conference, will President Arafat be included?
Secondly, I turn to fishing—also mentioned by the noble Baroness—and stress the seriousness of the threat to cod fishing for both Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the case of Northern Ireland, we have already had the experience of three years of cod closures in the Irish Sea, and have suffered. Our fishermen have no alternative sources of employment because they live in the rural areas of County Down. Therefore, will it be taken into account by Her Majesty's Government that the Northern Ireland fishermen, unlike any other fishermen in the United Kingdom, have already suffered from cod closures and should therefore be treated specially?

475
Finally, much as I welcome enlargement and Turkey's application to join the European Union, I would be concerned if we accepted into the European Union a divided Cyprus before there is a settlement in that island.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. I have dealt with the fishing matters and undertake to transmit his concerns, which I recognise as being reasonable. In the Prime Minister's Statement he will have heard that, if there is undue hardship on fishing communities, the Prime Minister is willing to consider additional financial support. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, we cannot have a situation where the fishing stocks are so reduced that there will be no livelihood for anyone. She made a powerful point there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, also made the point regarding the Middle East. I am afraid that I had so many notes which I was scratching down I omitted to deal with that. I apologise for that discourtesy and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, for reminding me. The declaration agreed was quite plain. It condemns suicide bombings, which damage the Palestinian cause. It supports the Palestinians involved in the reform process. With reference to the specific point made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, it calls on Israel to halt the excessive use of force, to reverse its settlement policy, and immediately freeze all settlement activity. I am bound to say that we hope to work together with our colleagues and friends in the United States, but we are entitled to have a view, and I remind your Lordships of it. It was the latter five or 10 electrifying minutes of the Prime Minister's speech at the Labour Party Conference where he called for final status negotiations before the end of this year on the basis of the 1967 boundaries.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord acknowledge a rather curious reflection on the magnitude of the change that has taken place? When I recall my first meeting with the Czech communist Foreign Minister, he conceded to me that the bears which he hunted in the hills of his countryside could easily have been Polish as well as Czech. I responded that there was more freedom of movement for bears in those countries than there was for people.
In many ways, that is symbolic of the huge changes that have taken place. It is also symbolic—as I recall from having helped draft at least a dozen statements of this kind following European Summit meetings—that on many occasions it was necessary to try to make bricks without much straw. On this occasion, it must be a matter for huge satisfaction that there are so many real straws with which to compose this Statement—above all., the completion of enlargement and all that goes with it.
I also welcome the progress made—and it is progress—in relation to Turkey and Cyprus, both of which have hugely intractable problems. I would be grateful if that could be acknowledged. Finally,
476
perhaps the Leader of the House will underline yet again the importance of two other issues that strike me as huge. The first is the powerful detailed commitment to the resolute pursuit of a role by the European Union in relation to the problem in the Middle East. That would be enormously welcome on all sides of the House. The second is the real progress made in the intractable problem of obtaining a clear relationship between the European Union and NATO, so that at last we can begin to mobilise our European partners into making an effective contribution to an effective European commitment to peacekeeping and beyond.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, is typically generous. It must be a cause of great gratification to him that what was brought about, in very substantial part, was based on the endeavours that he committed himself to—not always making himself entirely popular with some sections of his own party. I am not making that as a partisan point; it adds to the courage of what he did.
The noble and learned Lord is right. We must be firm. We must continue to look for justice for all in the Middle East. I agree that the European Union is capable of being a very powerful actor in that particular field of conflict. He is absolutely right that we must obtain some final resolution of the precise intricacies of the relationship between the European Union and NATO.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although many people in the House will regard, as he does, the Copenhagen Summit as a great step forward, there are still problems that need to be addressed? When we look at the external border of the enlarged European Union being a large border—with Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine—and what it might be following successful negotiations with Turkey, we have a potential enormous threat to the integrity of the internal market. That does not make the enlargement wrong, it makes the imperative of dealing with border security absolutely urgent. Although I do not ask my noble and learned friend to give a detailed response today, I hope that he makes careful note of it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend is right. He speaks with a good deal more authority than I, having been more closely concerned with European matters. He is right. Every opportunity brings with it a concomitant threat. In agreeing with his theme, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said. These are extraordinary opportunities. It is a leap of imagination that is required, but it is not a leap of faultless optimism. As my noble friend said, we must be extremely careful. After all, a community of 15 will have another 10 members, and that will be difficult. If we do not recognise the difficulties, we shall be extremely foolish and short-sighted.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, first, will the Minister say a word or two to the House concerning the Government's aspirations with regard

477
to the British rebate? Although this is not up for formal renegotiation until 2006, it has now been raised as an issue by some of the newly joining states who clearly see a fundamental injustice in some of Europe's poorer states contributing towards a rebate to a richer one.
Secondly, in reporting to the House today the Prime Minister has made great play of the primacy of the nation state within this newly enlarged European Union. Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that there is some significance that those states, with their hard won and much prized sovereignty, clearly see no fundamental problem with joining a single currency as part of joining the Union? Will the Minister comment on that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the abatement is settled. It was settled in 1999 at Berlin. I do not believe that claims of an unjust settlement are justified, bearing in mind the contribution that the United Kingdom has historically made and continues to make. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, turned to the single currency. Out of the corner of her eye, she may have seen that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, was unduly pacific and I believe that she has successfully egged him on.
The two are not the same, nor is it wise to talk of national sovereignty in the classic 17th century description with which we were once all familiar. Sovereignty is capable of being deployed in a way that we were never taught in our school-books or university days. That is the real excitement of the time in which we are living.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I regret to have to tell the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House that far from affecting a Damascene conversion, to many of us the proposed enlargement is a colossal mistake because the economies of the emerging democracies of eastern Europe simply cannot afford the EU social and labour policies.
Enlargement is bad for the United Kingdom, too, because it is the excuse for the corrupt octopus in Brussels to devour even more of our sovereignty. Widening means deepening, but I do not know whether my party has caught up with that yet. At first sight, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is difficult to understand why the applicant nations want to join the wretched thing.
I have two questions. First, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the main reason for the enthusiasm of the applicant nations to join the European Union—at least their political classes—could be that if members of those political classes manage to obtain a job in Brussels their salaries stand to increase 20 times? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that that is bound to colour their attitude, which may not be shared by their people?
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord says that we are in trouble with the common fisheries policy, which is even worse than the common agricultural policy. Does he agree that if the United Kingdom had never
478
ceded that 75 per cent of fish which swim in European Union waters and which belonged to the UK before we were foolish enough to join the EU, there would be no trouble with our fishing industry?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not say that it was difficult to understand why the applicant nations wanted to join the wretched thing. However, if I lived in Poland, Hungary or the Baltic States, I would not have much difficulty in answering that question.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
4.31 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill. I am particularly happy to do so because during debate on the previous Bill in your Lordships' House I made considerable attempts to argue that the direction in which we ought to move was to have more of Patten rather than less. I did not receive much joy for all my efforts, but I am pleased that two years later we are moving in the direction of having more Patten rather than less.
I welcome in particular the awareness that the police service must be representative of the local community and must secure its co-operation. That is covered in Clause 15. I welcome the reduction in the majority of members of the Policing Board present and voting from 10 to eight, which appears in Clause 10. I strenuously argued for that. I welcome in general the emphasis that the Policing Board will have more "reach" to ensure that the police service performs in line with the wishes of the community. I am also pleased that the powers of the ombudsman have been extended to provide him with an effective role in Northern Ireland. I welcome the Bill.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill builds upon the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and its provisions cover in particular the relations between the Policing Board, now up and running, and the Chief Constable, the powers of the ombudsman and some amendment of the law on district policing partnerships. It is designed to implement many of the recommendations of the implementation plan on policing of August 2001 for action on the Patten report. That plan records with justifiable pride the significant progress made, including, sadly, in order to meet the requirement for a 50:50 Protestant-Catholic force, the enforced retirement of 1,000 experienced officers and the reduction of the size of the Special Branch by 50 per cent.
The recommendations of the Patten report were based on the principle that inclusiveness was the key to a peaceful future; that wolves, among others, given the chance, asked nothing better than to lie down with lambs. And in a way, that was true, but their object in doing so was likely to be to eat them.

479
But it was of course important that Sinn Fein/IRA should no longer be able to reject the police as unrepresentative of the nationalist community because it contained only 6 per cent of Catholics, even though the reason for that—of which we can never be reminded too often—was that only a handful of very brave and committed men and women from that community dared to enter the police knowing that they and their families would be at lifelong risk of being murdered by the IRA as traitors. That imbalance, through no fault of the police, was in any case a matter of genuine concern for those many nationalists, including the SDLP, who were not terrorists.
Now that major point of contention has been dealt with and the Policing Board, designed to include representatives of all political parties, has been created to oversee policing in Northern Ireland, the condition of Patten has been met. The Government, however, received a rude shock. Sinn Fein/IRA has not only refused to join the board, it has continued to reject the police and to claim that nothing but a totally new force will do. It has targeted, threatened and in one case attempted to kill harmless young new entrants who are Catholic. The order from Sinn Fein/IRA to its people to treat the police as it treated the RUC—that is, to reject its authority and threaten or kill—remains.
I welcome and support the principle which characterises the Government's approach to the legislation of police matters which this Bill represents; that is, that the police Bill shall be concerned exclusively with the needs of good policing rather than the need to meet the political agenda of any one party. As it was drafted in the light of the commitment in the implementation plan of 2001, some of which at least was driven by the need perceived by Patten to reassure and mollify Sinn Fein/IRA and, it was hoped, bring them on board, it still contains clauses which need, I believe, amendment. An example is Clause 2 on the board's policing objectives and powers. Clause 8 is another, as is the clause on the powers and scope for action of the ombudsman. Not least is the example of the clause relating to the independence of both of the district policing partnerships. We shall certainly be paying particular attention to those clauses when we come to debate the Bill in Committee.
What is new and reassuring is that the Government have chosen to exclude from the present Bill, though not from eventual further legislation in the light of political developments, what might be called the Sinn Fein agenda on the issues raised. Those have been published separately under the title of "texts for consideration". They were evidentially conceded in principle in the Weston Park talks of July 2001 between Sinn Fein/IRA and the British and Irish Governments, talks at which other political parties, though there, were not present and participating.
The Minister of State, speaking in another place on 2nd December (Official Report, cols. 637 and 638) described the transaction, which was published in August 2001 as the Weston Park agreement, first as "intentions" and then as "commitments", which the Government felt it was essential to honour. The
480
Weston Park document also contained a similar commitment to do something to enable the OTRs to return and live in their community.
I am glad that the Government's wise approach today is to consider solely what will make for good effective policing, as it ought to be conducted in the rest of the UK, and no longer to regard legislation on policing as yet another area where concessions can be made to Sinn Fein/IRA in order either to bring them on board or to secure commitments from them to do what they are supposed to do anyway; that is, to behave like a normal political party which is there to serve the electors and which does not seek to set up a separate state in its own community through the exercise of violence against that community by its own private army and by the rejection of the rule of law and the police.
However, we need to think one step further. Gerry Adams has said several times recently, both here and in the United States, that the British Government must come forward with a comprehensive time-framed programme for implementing outstanding aspects of the Belfast agreement. This is code, among other things, for the total withdrawal of troops from British territory at a time when the police are desperately overstretched and the situation potentially explosive. He requires a,
"detailed, transparent and irreversible commitment",
for these issues, he says, are "entitlements not concessions". In the same period, Martin McGuinness has flatly denied rumours that the IRA will disband, and he is well placed to know.
What concerns me is that, despite the Government's present robust intention, to which I pay tribute, to base their legislation on policing on solely professional considerations—that is, will it produce an effective police force?—and despite the Prime Minister's equally robust statement that,
"the concept of Sinn Fein or of former Republican prisoners participating in policing while maintaining a private army is absurd",
the implication that the Sinn Fein/IRA agenda as set forth in the texts could be brought forward for legislation, like the issue of the OTRs, if only they make undefined concessions, wholly undermines the commitment to policing, not politics.
Short of the complete abolition of the IRA, total severance of the Siamese twins—Sinn Fein and the IRA—and the complete decommissioning of the paramilitaries on the streets, as well as an end to arms buying, not only stockpiling, there is no way that the presence of Sinn Fein/IRA on the Police Board can he made compatible with an effective police force. It works now because the SDLP represents nationalists, but it has neither paramilitaries, nor a private army, nor an intelligence arm dedicated to undermining the state and the police.
At a time when international terrorism is a real and immediate threat, what hope will the Special Branch or the police have of operating if Sinn Fein/IRA sits on the board? Far from trying to bring it in, I suggest that we need to keep it out, and that we are fully justified in

481
doing so. It refuses to join and continues to attack those in the nationalist community who do. Let us accept that and build up the very good beginning that has been made thanks to the courage and good sense of the SDLP and the infinite courage of the police themselves. The SDLP speaks for the moderate, decent nationalists. That should be enough.
We speak confidently of taking courageous steps for peace. Everyone in Northern Ireland, including the nationalist community, will sleep easier if the Sinn Fein/IRA Trojan horse can be kept outside the wall. I believe that it is both disingenuous and dangerous to imply that given some meaningless concessions—such as, perhaps, to decommission more old arms when new ones have already been brought—we are prepared to give Sinn Fein/IRA the power to destroy the institutions of government. It has a relentless and effective agenda while we are still struggling in the treacle of the Patten report.
If, however, the Government continue—no doubt with the encouragement of the Irish Government—to negotiate, let them, I beg, exclude all police and security issues from the negotiation and exact from Sinn Fein/IRA, as a first step, the total decommissioning of all its paramilitaries—a requirement which would have to apply equally to the Loyalists—and an abandonment of the regime of unlawful murder, beatings and exiles which should never have been tolerated for so long. Let it be seen to end—and it can—all violence against its own people and accord to the police the right to operate freely against crime and violence.
In this period of direct rule it is vital that we send a clear message of support for ordinary people on the streets; that we conclude no more agreements with a party that operates with guns under the table and guns on the streets so that men and women dare not speak to the press, go to the courts or appeal for protection to the police. We are tolerating in a part of the United Kingdom behaviour and breaches of human rights which we daily denounce—and rightly—in other countries. I am glad to know that in this Bill at least we are about to operate a professional rather than a political agenda.
I, too, wish to thank the noble and learned Lord and, through him, the new Secretary of State, for the present approach to police legislation. Just as I supported and respected the steps taken by an earlier Secretary of State, to whom reference was made by my noble friend Lord Glentoran, to protect the police from the Sinn Fein/IRA agenda, which is designed to destroy them, I hope that we can continue that vigilance.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I believe that this is the third Bill we have had on Northern Ireland policing in four years. I very well remember my baptism of fire when I spoke for the first time on a Bill in your Lordships' House. That was during discussion of what became the Police (Northern Ireland) Act
482
2000, which we on these Benches very much supported. So we are very pleased to see the Government taking a further step towards the implementation of the Patten report through the Bill now before us. The Act established the new Northern Ireland Policing Board and I look forward very much to hearing from two members of that board—the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney—in a few minutes time.
My interest in policing stems from my background as a member of a police authority, albeit in England—in north Yorkshire to be precise—for 20 years. I chaired that authority for eight years. I was also a vice chairman of the National Association of Police Authorities, which did much to support and encourage the transformation from the former Police Authority for Northern Ireland to the present policing board.
I am quite relieved that the Bill before us is relatively short, although experience warns me that I should take scant account of its brevity. However, as we have heard, much of the Bill is about tidying up existing legislation or taking further steps to fulfil the Patten recommendations. That is a positive step which my noble friends and I welcome.
In particular, we very much welcome the reaffirmation in the Bill of the core policing principle that police officers must carry out their duties with the aim of securing the support of local communities and by co-operating with local people. We also welcome the proposed changes relating to consultation by the Secretary of State with the board about the long-term policing objectives and codes of practice.
The Secretary of State is rightly required already to consult with the board and the chief constable before introducing new objectives or codes, or altering existing ones. The Bill extends this by placing an explicit obligation on the Secretary of State to undertake that consultation,
"with a view to reaching agreement".
This is a sensible change. I wish that England and Wales could follow the good example set by Northern Ireland but, as we have recently had the major Police Reform Act, I do not expect the Home Secretary to be in a rush to bring forward more legislation at present. I can but hope for the future.
The police service in England and Wales could also benefit from adopting the kind of transparency surrounding the costs of police pensions proposed in the Bill. I well remember how we on these Benches sought to introduce a similar provision in the Police Reform Act. The costs of the current unfunded police pension scheme continue to soar and will add a further £70 million to police costs next year. By 2013, some 25 per cent of police funding is expected to be eaten up in police pension costs. But, unlike what is proposed here for Northern Ireland, there will be no obligation on the Government to spell out exactly how much of police funding goes on meeting that pensions burden instead of being directed into front-line policing. I recognise that the provisions in the Bill are driven by new accounting requirements; nevertheless we could and should learn from this approach for England and Wales. I warmly welcome the initiative.

483
Also welcome are the provisions which separate the arrangements for production of the best value performance plan and the publication of a summary of the board's assessment of performance against that plan. That, too, is a sensible step and reflects the position in England and Wales where this discipline has been helpful to both police authorities and police officers.
I turn now to those parts of the Bill which we shall be examining with a more cautious eye. Some aspects of the Bill give us concern, notably reports by the chief constable to the board, inquiries proposed by the board and investigations by the ombudsman. However, the key concern on this side of the House relates to the proposals in Part 2 to give police powers to non-police officers. That will come as no surprise to those noble Lords who contributed to the lengthy debates on the subject during the passage of the Police Reform Act. Many provisions in the Act represent a radical and significant change in the nature of policing. Provisions relating to those powers were brought into force only this month. It is far too early to be rushing to adopt a similar approach in Northern Ireland until the effect of the changes in England and Wales has been properly evaluated.
On these Benches, we continue strongly to oppose the idea of non-police officers having the powers to carry out intimate searches. By their very nature, they are extremely intrusive and could cause major problems. Such powers are not to be exercised lightly. Human rights are at issue. Individual rights of privacy must be respected. They must be infringed only in the most tightly controlled circumstances.
I have enough trouble accepting that a police officer can conduct intimate searches. I listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, who indicated that they would be undertaken only by a trained medic. I need assurance that the power will not he extended to support officers. The excuse that it will release police officers to do more imperative tasks does not wash with me, I am afraid. We all welcome measures to relieve police officers of routine paperwork and administrative duties and so get them back on the streets. But our view remains that these are most sensitive and intrusive powers. We shall want to pursue the matter in Committee.
The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve a police service that is responsive and sensitive to their needs, and fully accountable through its representatives on the policing board. In so far as the Bill moves us further down that path, it is welcome; but we give notice that we shall pursue the concerns that I have highlighted in more detail as the Bill progresses.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, when the same government come to Parliament on three separate occasions within a four-year period to legislate on the same issue, one must be tempted to ask why that is necessary. In such circumstances, one could be excused for concluding that that government did not have a clue about what they were attempting
484
to do in the first instance. But we all know that that is not the case and that the Government know exactly what they are about.
For this will not be the last legislation on the subject. This Bill is only the softening-up process for something so dangerous and perverse, and so undemocratic in its conception, that we will ask, "Have those in the Northern Ireland Office and in Downing Street lost their collective minds?"
In a pre-planned sequel to what is before us, there are, already drafted in legislative form, 11 pages of "text for consideration". It is not intended that we debate it here today, or in Committee, but these clauses might properly be labelled as the "IRA Army Council Clauses". They cannot be ignored.
Let me clarify the background. The Government spin what we are debating today as deriving from a commitment given to Sinn Finn at the Weston Park talks in July last year. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal has reassured me on the issue, but, lest the point was missed, it is important that I restate it and that he acknowledge it again. Weston Park was the location for talks between Northern Ireland political parties concerning practical difficulties encountered in implementing the Belfast agreement. But neither there nor subsequently was the Ulster Unionist Party involved in, or consulted about, the commitment given by the Prime Minister to Sinn Fein/ IRA. I refer to Sinn Fein's being accorded a de facto role relating to operational policing matters and to permitting membership of the Policing Board and district police partnerships to convicted terrorists.
I will return to the Prime Minister's dubious arrangement with Sinn Fein/IRA later. Briefly, I wish to look at policing and law and order in Northern Ireland as they are today. Following the Patten report—a mixed bag of good and bad, but which we have to swallow, lumps and all—Tom Constantine was appointed to oversee its implementation. His most recent report—his third—is worth serious consideration. He begins:
"The scope and magnitude of the changes recommended by the Independent Commission are unparalleled in modern-day policing".
Later, he points out:
"The Police Service deserves credit for having sincerely and diligently undertaken a change process of unprecedented scope and magnitude on policing".
What is also unprecedented is that there are no fewer than,
"772 performance indicators that both represent 'best practices' in policing and measure the progress and pace at which the policing institutions implement change".
That is benchmarking gone over the top. But, obviously, the police are playing their part. So who is letting the side down? None other than those for whom the democratic parties—particularly mine—created the opportunity for transition from violence to peaceful democracy. It is primarily IRA/Sinn Fein, but I do not overlook the violence of that rag-bag of so-called loyalists.

485
The difference between the two factions is that loyalists are Ulster's equivalent of London Yardies—criminally motivated and without support from Unionist politicians. The IRA, whatever its criminality, is still politically driven by the very people with whom our Prime Minister has contrived this "text for consideration".
Ultimately—and that is why we must consider this Bill in terms of what it heralds rather than what it appears to be—the "consideration" is about how convicted terrorists can become members of the Policing Board and district policing partnerships. It is also about devolving into four sub-units of the Belfast district policing partnership, effectively Balkanising policing in Belfast.
Ordinary lifetime law-abiding members of Ulster's community will be expected to join a veritable "felons' club" when they seek to play their part as board or partnership members. Would that be advocated in Surrey? How many extremists, Yardies, racists or murderers of women, children and police officers would be accommodated in the leafy suburbs of south-east England? Even if they signed a piece of paper eschewing their former ways, it is unlikely that the Prime Minister would underwrite such an accommodation.
But in Northern Ireland we are expected to accommodate such people. Regarding Florida gun-running, IRA association with Colombian narco-terrorism, Castlereagh, which struck at the heart of police intelligence, and Northern Ireland Office spying that struck at the heart of government and necessitated a minimum £30 million compensation and security scheme for prison officers, we have to pretend that all that terrorism never happened.
No wonder, then, that the sordid, secret capitulation by the Government to Sinn Fein/IRA demands continues to be sold publicly as deriving from Weston Park, as though that gives it legitimacy.
Today, western democracies seem to be moving inexorably towards what will likely be a 20 to 30-year struggle against highly mobile and ruthless international terrorism backed up not just by organised crime as we once knew it, but by modern international criminals so competent in exploiting information technology that they may have the capacity to undermine and corrupt our economic structures and major financial institutions.
Against that background I ask your Lordships to judge whether, in their dealings with Northern Ireland's policing issues, this Government are sending out a signal that they have not the stomach to confront the reality of terrorism and crime on their own doorstep.
If time permitted I should wish to draw attention to that part of the Bill that deals with the police ombudsman's role. I support the concept of a police ombudsman, but I hope that in Committee I can ensure that we will be able to examine the scope of that office so that we do not create a de facto supremo who has precedence over every aspect of policing.
486
I would like to review the 50:50 recruiting strategy, which was invoked to ensure that the make-up of the Police Service of Northern Ireland was equitable but which, according to Chief Constable Hugh Orde, has produced only 10 per cent of applicants for civilian posts from the Roman Catholic tradition. Hence, because of the 50:50 criterion, he has been unable to recruit the number of civilians he needs to free police officers from civilian duties.
We all know that intimidation is rife and that young Roman Catholics are being actively dissuaded from applying. Mr Orde, the chief constable, says,
"We had 26 successful people from the Catholic tradition and around 250 non-Catholics. That means I can only recruit 52 and it makes it harder".
On 9th December he also pointed out—I think it was in the Irish Independent—that the police endeavours against dissident paramilitary groups were being frustrated by lack of response from the Catholic tradition to a recent recruitment drive by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Consequently, serving officers are having to operate under huge pressures and it is little wonder absenteeism is still far too high.
I must conclude by asking: where does this Bill address a single issue of this nature? It is not meant to. It is certainly not about how your Lordships' House legislates; it is about a compact between the Prime Minister and Gerry Adams without regard to the greater good of the police or society or the democratic processes that we are here to represent. Despite the no doubt well intentioned, if somewhat patronising, advice from one noble Lord to the Ulster Unionists—advice that would be better directed towards Sinn Fein—I have to say that this Bill will not and must not get an easy passage in Committee if the consequences of Executive diktat are to be avoided.
5.4 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, in declaring an interest as a independent member of the Policing Board for Northern Ireland, I should like to say a little about it. The Government, the Ministers and many others have been singing our praises. Of course we are grateful for that and bathing in the glory of it is quite nice for a change. It is true that we came to unanimous decisions over such issues as uniform, badges, flags and even the Omagh bomb issue. Many additional days' work are being put in to solve the problems and many other issues in front of us at present, even burning the midnight oil to achieve results.
At the time of the suspension of the Executive, the independent members were reappointed and the politicians who previously were members by virtue of their Assembly seats agreed to be appointed. So the board remained intact. It is one of the very few institutions that has done so over the past couple of months. Even more praise came from the Government after that.
On the surface, we on the board, including the hard-working staff, get more praise than virtually any other body in the United Kingdom at the moment.

487
However, perhaps we should look underneath the surface. Are we getting the practical support in all areas that is really needed to be, as Patten put it,
"an institution of central importance in creating a new police force".
It should be acceptable throughout the community and strong enough to be effective.
As Patten pointed out in chapter 16, the cornerstone and building blocks for the future are training, retraining and the environment in which it is carried out. He condemned the present training centre at Garnerville and recommended that a new purpose-built college should be built as soon as possible.
The other day, Tom Constantine, the Oversight Commissioner, mentioned this problem of the training college in his report. He subsequently made a press statement. He said:
"If we are going to prepare these young people and service people for future, you have to train them. The facility at Garnerville is deplorable by any standard. I have never seen a training facility that bad for an agency of this size. It is almost like a third world type of facility. I mean when you look at the inside of it. I have been to eastern Europe and some of the aspects of that remind me of that. When I first came here I was told that this would take three to six years to complete. I thought that was too long a period of time. I now have been told, two and a half years later, it will take three to six years. So it seems that every time If ask the question, no matter when I ask the question, it will be three to six years. So I draw a line under that and that is what I call implementing in isolation one or the other for cherry picking".
I speak as an independent person on the board, but I can say without fear of contradiction that we and the staff feel very let down by the NIO on this issue. A proportion of the Maze site—about 70 acres, or up to 30 hectares, for those who are European, which amounts to 25 per cent of the total—was identified as perhaps being suitable. We were told that as the whole site was to be transferred as a gift to the Executive, the Treasury could hardly then purchase it back for our use. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister refused to provide it for their new police force. However, now that the Assembly is suspended and direct rule reimposed, the NIO and the Treasury could provide us with a proportion of the Maze site, but they will not. They seem to be happy to let this remain a political football. Okay, perhaps there has been praise for the board, but practical support on a key Patten recommendation is lacking.
Another issue is the support for setting up district policing partnerships. These are considered to be vital to community policing in the future. In fact, the text for consideration which was attached to the Bill is very much about DPPs. The Policing Board will provide 75 per cent of the funding and the local councils will provide 25 per cent, so they are very much our business. The councils will run them and we will give the 75 per cent in the form of an annual grant. Even after paring down council estimates, our staff came up with a shortfall of £800,000 in our funding from the NIO for this task. We asked for more. The reply was, "Find it from other areas". The "other areas" are those for which we are getting so much praise in operating. It cannot come from staffing, as the NIO is fully aware that the Government's own consultants BDS are
488
recommending that we need increased resources. So where is it to come from, except from there? Those are not the only examples where many of us feel that words of praise are one thing, but it is now time for the Government to give us that practical support required to achieve the "new beginning" in policing in the Province.
This Bill comes to us with the attachment, the ''text for consideration", which must be dealt with now at Second Reading. The reasons are clear. There are the so-called "Sinn Fein clauses", which were in the Bill until only a few weeks ago. In addition, although they may become a future Bill after the enactment of the Bill now before the House, it is still possible that they could be brought forward as amendments to this legislation at a later stage—either here, or, indeed, in another place. So it is not wrong for us to talk about them now; we should not apologise for doing so. Those clauses are the price that the Government are willing to pay to bribe Sinn Fein to take part in DPPs and to take up places on our board.
I should like to discuss the first page of the "text for consideration", because DPPs are of such crucial importance. We, the board, will be funding many of them. There are plenty of members of Sinn Fein/IRA and of extreme loyalist groups who have no criminal convictions, so it is not as if there are no clean people without prison records available who could serve on them. Noble Lords should please note that Sinn Fein members are not being kept out; they have decided not to join these bodies unless criminals are permitted to serve on them.
In the last chapter of his report, Patten says:
"We therefore consider it vital that the recommendations in this report should be implemented comprehensively and faithfully".
In paragraph 6.26 on the independent members of DPPs, Patten says:
"As with the Policing Board, the independent members should be selected to represent business, and trade union interests and to provide expertise in matters pertaining to community safety"
The report also says that each DPP should be broadly representative of the district in terms of religion, gender, age, and cultural background. Including criminals would drive a coach and horses through this. It was never anything to do with Patten—the Patten that the Government rely so much on.
I should also like to consider the practical reality of that, not just the theory. DPPs will be about communication and trust between themselves and the police. How will the police be able to be frank and open with these people? The latter have their associates who may still be criminals—they will most certainly be in touch with the criminal world—and who will know so much about their past. On the DPPs, they will be open to pressure, if not blackmail, in order to gain access to confidential, or useful, information.
"Rehabilitation of offenders" is a buzz phrase these days, but surely, in the rest of the United Kingdom and the world, "rehabilitation" is normally taken as being rehabilitation to being an ordinary law-abiding member of society. That is one thing—access to community policing is quite another, and unjustified.

489
In the light of such issues as the Stormont spying affair, I believe that the presence of Sinn Fein on the DPPs and on the Policing Board in the foreseeable future would destroy the ability of these bodies to function. That is not to say that Sinn Fein can never join; that is to say that we have taken three-and-a-half years from the previous agreement when Sinn Fein was meant to come clean. It is not clean now. How on earth can the Government conceivably ask us to trust members of Sinn Fein if they come out in either January or February and say that they have seen the light? It is simply inconceivable. The police could not speak to us as they do at present—that is, openly and without fear. It would be unforgivable if anything in this Bill were to undermine our work on the board to achieve the "new beginning" for policing in the Province.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I have been involved with policing in Northern Ireland for some 30 years, beginning as Minister for Home Affairs in the early 1970s when I worked with the Inspector General of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I was involved in many of the reforms in policing in Northern Ireland during those 30 years; for example, the Hunt report, and the change whereby the special constabulary—specials still exist in England, but no longer in Northern Ireland—became the Ulster Defence Regiment, and, in recent years, the Royal Irish Regiment which has been involved in security in Northern Ireland and abroad.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, said, we also created the Northern Ireland Police Authority. On the basis of the Hunt report, we went out of our way to ensure that it was a non-political body—no politicians. But the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is quite right. Policing has become very political in Northern Ireland, especially since the passing of the 2000 Act. We now have politicians on the Northern Ireland Policing Board. We have independents, some of whom are also very political. They are not truly independents. I shall not mention names, but I certainly know the political involvement of some of the independent members of the board. I must declare an interest as a political member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board: I find many of its meetings very political and very divisive. For the outside world to think otherwise is to be misinformed.
As my noble friend Lord Maginnis rightly said, some aspects of the Bill are based on private negotiations at Weston Park. Yes, there were Ulster Unionists at Weston Park—outside the room—including my noble friend Lord Maginnis and myself. But there were also private meetings taking place in the main rooms involving the Prime Minister, Sinn Fein, and the SDLP. Between them, they reached agreements on which we were not consulted, in which we were not involved, and with which we certainly did not agree when we heard about them. This Bill is the product of private agreements between the Prime Minister, Sinn Fein and the SDLP.
490
The latter is an ongoing operation in Northern Ireland. Every few months—perhaps it is every two years—we get another police Bill for Northern Ireland as a result of pressures from the nationalist community in the Province. Of course, there are some aspects of the Bill that I welcome, for example, the regularity of public sessions of the Northern Ireland Policing Board with the Chief Constable. However, those public meetings have proved uninteresting to people in Northern Ireland: very few attend them. I am glad to see that the Government have recognised that those meetings have not achieved the expected success and that they propose a reduction in the number.
There are some provisions I would have liked to see in the Bill that are not included. I should have liked a reference to "advance notice" of meetings of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I attended a meeting of the policing board on Friday of last week; I had attended one on Thursday. I was in the House on Tuesday and received a telephone call telling me that there would be a meeting within 24 hours on Wednesday. Of course I could not go; nor could many other members of the board. Too short a notice is being given for emergency meetings of the policing board. This issue needs to be addressed.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said, we welcome and appreciate praise for the Northern Ireland Policing Board. But sometimes there are events within the board of which people are unaware and about which they neither know nor understand. A very serious incident has taken place in the Province involving a senior policeman, Chief Superintendent Lowry, from Special Branch. He received a letter of dismissal from the new Chief Constable, but within 48 hours that letter was withdrawn. It was unbelievable.
What happened, of course, is that Chief Superintendent Lowry resigned: he was so hurt. He sent a letter of complaint to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I have chaired boards of directors for nearly 30 years. We have had many letters of complaint—about, for example, unfair dismissal, libel, or religious discrimination. Never once in my period as chairman have I refused to allow members of the board to know what a letter of complaint was about. Yet, in this case, we are told by the chairman that he cannot show the letter to the members of the policing board because it is too sensitive. He asked us to agree that it should be submitted straightaway for legal advice. Chief Superintendent Lowry and the public in Northern Ireland do not realise that, although he lodged a complaint with the Northern Ireland Policing Board, we have never actually seen the letter. We referred a matter for legal opinion but did not know what we were talking about.
The aspects of the Bill that concern me are the reduced role of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in policing matters, which is what is at the bottom of this Bill, the provisions for inquiries by the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and the provisions for further investigation by the ombudsman. As I said, the Bill does not contain some provisions I should have liked to see, such as provision to address the issue of 50–50 employment—50 per cent

491
Catholic and 50 per cent non-Catholic. Why does such provision create problems? It does so because police numbers in Northern Ireland, which collapsed after the introduction of the PSNI, have now fallen well below the minimum stated by Patten himself in his report. We need to recruit more new policemen as quickly as possible.
As crime is obviously rising in Northern Ireland because of the lack of policemen, our new Chief Constable, Mr Orde, said, "Right—one way to get more policemen out on the street quickly is to take police off civilian work behind the desks in police stations". He had 276 successful candidates. However, as only 26 of them were Catholics, he was allowed to employ only 52 of the candidates. The result was that 224 successful Protestant applicants could not be appointed because of their religion. There was no other reason.
There is now discrimination against Protestants in many aspects of Northern Ireland life. I am sorry to say that it is causing further resentment and sectarian bitterness and division within the community. The bottom line is that it is denying us more policemen on the streets and roads of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, says that Sinn Fein should be welcomed into the Northern Ireland Policing Board once it rejects violence. He will recall that that has been a requirement for many years for those serving in local government in Northern Ireland. It has not stopped Sinn Fein members serving in local government, and it has not stopped Sinn Fein/ IRA from continuing terrorist violence in Northern Ireland. The mere statement that one rejects violence is not a reason for allowing anyone connected to or involved in violence to serve as a member of the policing board.
Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked, so we were assured by both the southern Ireland Prime Minister. Mr Ahern, and our own Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Thus, while the IRA continues to exist and is indeed active at home and abroad, there is no way in which Sinn Fein can serve on the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Nor should the new Chief Constable involve himself in political debate in this matter, as he did recently by expressing a desire to have Sinn Fein on the policing board. If that were to happen in present circumstances, the Ulster Unionists and the DUP members would resign from the board and it would be left in a state of collapse.
Another policing issue is very much in public debate in Northern Ireland—the question of devolving control of policing to the Northern Ireland Assembly should it reappear. In practice, after an election, Sinn Fein could emerge as the largest party in a devolved Assembly. Martin McGuinness, a self-confessed terrorist and understood to be still a member of the IRA Army Council, could then become Minister for the police in Northern Ireland. The fact that Mr McGuinness was coincidentally born on the same street—Elmwood Street, in Londonderry—as the wife of our new Chief Constable, Hugh Orde, does not make him any more acceptable to the British majority
492
in Northern Ireland. While the IRA exists, there must be no possibility of devolution of justice or policing to the Northern Ireland Executive at Stormont. Independent members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board should not be showing their real colours by demanding such a transfer of powers.
In the overall context of policing in Northern Ireland, and as we discuss the political role of the Northern Ireland Policing Board—which does have a political role—and, one hopes, the re-emergence of the Northern Ireland Executive at Stormont, I should like to close on the issue of North-South relations. The South does have an input now into such matters in Northern Ireland.
On 26th November 2002, in the southern Irish Parliament, all in one day, an entire Bill was passed to give effect to a new treaty, signed by the British ambassador on 19th November. There was no consultation with the Ulster Unionist Party. The treaty provides for Northern Ireland Office Ministers to replace Unionist Ministers on the North-South bodies during the present suspension of the Assembly. That is totally contrary to the terms of the Belfast agreement, of which I was one of the three main negotiators for the Ulster Unionist Party. Ulster Unionists such as myself agreed to the creation of the North-South bodies on the condition that the Ulster Unionist Minister present would have to give his approval for decisions to be reached. This new treaty, brought about by Dublin just a few weeks ago, completely violates what we agreed when we negotiated the Belfast agreement.
New talks started a few days later, on 21st November—notice the date; two days after this new treaty between Dublin and Her Majesty's Government—yet neither the Secretary of State, Mr Paul Murphy, nor the Dublin external affairs Minister, Mr Cowen, told the Ulster Unionist Party or any other parties at the talks about this secret agreement that had undermined one of the main planks of our Belfast agreement. I have to say that I feel betrayed by Her Majesty's Government on this issue. No longer can I promote the Belfast agreement to the British majority in Northern Ireland. Ulster Unionists should not return to the Northern Ireland Executive at Stormont unless the problems caused by this secret treaty are urgently addressed.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland.
The Good Friday agreement recognised that:
"Policing is a central issue in any society".
It also acknowledged that, given Northern Ireland's history of deep divisions, the issue is,
"highly emotive, with great hurt suffered and sacrifices made by individuals and their families, including those in the RUC and other public servants".

493
However, those who supported the agreement in 1998 had the foresight to recognise that the agreement provided an opportunity for,
"a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole".
This remains an eminently worthy and essential challenge. A policing structure that is acceptable across a diversity of communities is the core of any stable and sustainable society. This is the challenge that still remains in a post-conflict Northern Ireland.
It is my belief that this Government have been more open and more responsive than any other British government in seeking to implement the aspirations of the participant parties in the Good Friday agreement. They have set out their shared understanding of the basic premise of the required policing structures and arrangements. It was agreed that the police service must be professional, effective and efficient; fair and impartial; free from partisan political control; accountable, both under the law for its actions and to the community it serves; representative of the community it polices; operating within a coherent and co-operative criminal justice system which conforms with human rights norms: within the framework of structures and arrangements that must be capable of delivering a policing service that is capable of maintaining law and order, but structures and arrangements that can also deliver a policing service in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels and with the maximum delegation of authority and responsibility consistent with the principles outlined. Again, that is an ambitious agenda but one that was addressed by the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland—the Patten commission.
Despite the immense amount of time, consultation and attention given to the way forward for policing in Northern Ireland by the Patten commission, the British Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland, the issue of policing has remained one of a number of areas of contested political space. The fact that the discussions and negotiations around attempts to remodel a police service for, it was hoped, a more peaceful and inclusive society have in effect become a zero sum game has done an immense disservice to those people who wish to see a modern, acceptable and effective police service. Since May 1998 we have seen a situation where a perceived gain for nationalists is automatically interpreted as a loss for unionists instead of the general acknowledgement that an acceptable police service should be one that is above sectoral politics. The reality is that no effective police service can be seen as belonging to any one section of the community. Policing must offer an impartial, effective and accountable service to all the people of Northern Ireland.
494
I certainly agree with the Patten commission when it pointed out that:
"Policing problems cannot be resolved simply on the basis of either nationalist or unionist demands … It is not possible to assemble the best set of proposals for the police service that Northern Ireland deserves by searching out the middle point between opposing political views".
I also believe that Northern Ireland deserves better than the lowest political common denominator approach, and certainly in terms of the new beginning that has been introduced through the Police Service of Northern Ireland I feel that there have been major efforts to draw on models of best practice despite the predictable party political sniping within Northern Ireland.
There are some who see change as being the enemy of their old certainties and securities. There are others who expect change to have happened yesterday and who argue that it is a conspiracy if it does not. But what we have seen in Northern Ireland is a process of change that has taken time and dialogue but that is delivering a policing structure and approach that may yet be a model of good practice for other regions and countries. We have heard it said often enough that the peace process in Northern Ireland is a process. Well, so too is the evolution of a new police service as evidenced by the debates around the introduction of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and the subsequent discussion around aspects of its implementation.
The amendments that we are considering today fall into five general areas: the powers of the Northern Ireland Policing Board; issues relating to district policing partnerships; police functions and appointments; the powers of the Police Ombudsman; and the disclosure of information and inquiries. I want to comment on each of those issues separately. Many of them go to the heart of the initial shared aspiration to ensure that policing would be accountable, representative and inclusive as befits the needs of a troubled and divided society emerging from a lengthy legacy of conflict.
With regard to the issues relating to the powers of the Policing Board, I welcome the strengthening and clarification of the provision made under Section 24 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 where the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to consult with the board prior to determining the long-term objectives for the policing of Northern Ireland. Under the amendment the Secretary of State will have to consult the board,
"with a view to obtaining its agreement to the proposed objectives or revision".
That recognises the prime role that the broadly representative Policing Board has in determining such objectives. It might be argued that an alternative formulation would be for the Secretary of State to be obliged to obtain the agreement of the board before he sets or changes long-term objectives or codes of practice, but certainly the proposals go some way to address the issue. Clearly the intent is there that agreement between the Secretary of State and the Policing Board is required rather than mere consultation. This is a welcome and important development.

495
Similarly, the proposed amendment to Section 25 of the 2000 Act represents a strengthening of the Policing Board's role vis-à-vis the framing of the board's policing objectives. This change is in line with the original vision contained in the Patten report. The issue of the stated grounds whereby the Chief Constable can appeal to the Secretary of State against reporting to inquiries held by the Policing Board also has a direct impact on the powers of the board. It is suggested in the proposed amendments that these grounds are reduced from four to three. The somewhat more general provision that compliance with the inquiry,
"would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension of offenders",
is to be removed. As the power of holding inquiries is clearly an important mechanism in enabling the Policing Board to hold the police service accountable, it is essential that any restrictions on that power are clearly defined and narrowly drawn.
A related issue is the proposal that weighted voting by Policing Board members as to the holding of inquiries should be laid down. However, although some commentators would argue that the decision to hold inquiries should be taken by a simple majority voting procedure, the proposed reduction in the number of votes required to trigger an inquiry will make the holding of such inquiries a more accessible mechanism for accountability purposes.
The amendment relating to the appointment of independent members to district policing partnerships imposes an obligation which hitherto did not exist on the board to ensure that in appointing independent members of the DPP the board has to ensure that members of the DPP taken together—independents and political representatives—are representative of the community in the district. Given the strength and positive contribution over the years of civil society organisations in Northern Ireland, that is a welcome proposition as it serves to increase the representativeness of the DPP structures.
There is, of course, the "text for consideration" concerning the disqualification of people who have had convictions from being independent members of DPPs. Although I understand that the text is subject to further discussion, there seems to be a certain anomaly whereby a convicted person could be a political member of a DPP but not an independent member. It is my sincere hope that that anomaly can be addressed as part of the progressive process of moving towards a wider sense of community ownership of policing. This development is particularly important in a post-conflict society but will require acts of leadership and courage on all sides. The right to expect open and accountable policing must be accompanied by the responsibility to participate in its implementation.
The proposals concerning police functions and appointments would appear to underpin the key concept of community policing that is increasingly recognised as being critical to the operation of an acceptable and effective police service whether in Milton Keynes or Derry. However, in the context of the mistrust and suspicions of communities in
496
transition from violence and alienation, that is a particularly important requirement. If the Police Service of Northern Ireland is ever to win the necessary acceptance it seems eminently sensible to assert that police officers will carry out their functions with the aim of securing the support of the local community and of acting in co-operation with the local community guided by a code of ethics. However, equally, it must be recognised that that community-based approach can be effective only if every effort is made to involve all sections of a local community. We should not seek to marginalise those who were seen to be in opposition to the state in the previous conflict. The aim must be to include and involve local community leaders and members and not to stereotype or alienate them. The understanding that people can and do change in a shifting political context is central to the comprehension of the peace process.
It must be hoped that the new wording relating to the Chief Constable's function vis-à-vis the Policing Board's plans and codes of practice will continue to enhance the position and standing of the board, as is right and fitting. However, there may be need to clarify the impact of the word "reasonably" in the paragraph that refers to the new obligation of the Chief Constable to supply the board with information that it reasonably requires for the purpose of its functions. No one who wishes policing arrangements well would wish to see ambiguities that might foment misunderstanding about what the Policing Board might reasonably expect in terms of provision of information by the Chief Constable to the board.
I have most serious reservations about the amendments relating to the powers of investigation by the ombudsman. The report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland clearly recommends that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland should be, and should be seen to be, an important institution in the government of Northern Ireland. The report went on to state:
"We cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of the office of Police Ombudsman in the future policing arrangements proposed".
It is my belief that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland must be empowered to investigate police policies and practices, instead of having the power only to carry out research into these crucial matters. Indeed, it should be made a necessary disciplinary offence to obstruct the ombudsman in investigation of police policies and practice. It is truly a case of answering the question, "Who guards the guardians?". In the situation in Northern Ireland, dealing with a legacy of mistrust, we must be able to come to a clear answer.
As currently worded, there is a clear danger that the formulation of the proposed amendments weakens the power of the ombudsman. Under the 2000 Act, the ombudsman could report on any matters relating to the practices and policies of the police that should in her view be drawn to the attention of the Chief Constable and the Policing Board. She could also carry out research into any matter that may have been subject of a practice and policy report. These powers

497
were not subject to the appeal process by either the Chief Constable or the board to the Secretary of State, which appears in the clause. Neither were the ombudsman's powers to investigate a practice or policy subject to the additional qualification that the practice or policy gave rise to significant public concern. We need new wording to empower the ombudsman to investigate policies and practices that she decides warrant an investigation, but without a qualification or caveat to modify such powers. A clear and definite role for the ombudsman is essential in the effective implementation of the policing framework for Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, much has been achieved, and while I have expressed a number of reservations about the clauses under consideration, I believe that more progress can be consolidated in the near future. I pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government for introducing the Bill. I have every confidence that they will address the points that I have raised, in particular in relation to the powers of the ombudsman. I also wish to pay tribute to those political representatives in Northern Ireland who have shown leadership and awareness of the need for change in the context of the shifting political circumstances of the region. Change is never easy, despite being inevitable.
From my experience of my frequent visits to Northern Ireland, where I visit schools, universities and conferences and many of the groups on the ground in Belfast and Derry, I am acutely aware of the growing community level of realisation that effective and inclusive policing can be a "win-win" arrangement for all sections of the divided community. What is required is the confidence and determination to achieve it.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal referred to "acts of completion" in relation to Northern Ireland and the Belfast agreement, and quoted the Prime Minister. I am sure that we are all praying that such acts will soon be forthcoming from all the political parties and all organisations associated or connected with them. The notion of completion has an obvious bearing on policing, particularly in the sense of full support for necessary police work and the ending of attempts at unofficial enforcement of social morality.
Acts of completion can be held to have still wider meanings. I suggest that prejudice, fear and hate are signs of incompleteness. The more that those negative emotions can be overcome, the more will minds and hearts be transformed. The walls of sectarian division have to fall, in the same way as the Berlin Wall fell, because those living on either side wanted to come together. Objects need to become subjects and enemies have still to be transformed into friends. Whatever our tradition, we all have to learn that apart from each other we are incomplete.
498
I turn now to the Bill itself. I shall not say that it is a mouse of a Bill, but it is certainly a modest affair. The hope is probably widespread that we are not going to be faced with a new or supplementary Northern Ireland police Bill every two years.
On Clauses 6 and 7, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that the Chief Constable is always able to speak confidentially to the chairman and members of the Policing Board? That seems entirely necessary, just as in courts of law it is sometimes necessary to impose restrictions on reporting. The interests of good policing, like the interests of justice, sometimes need protecting by limits on total disclosure. In the same connection, I also query whether targets and performance figures are always able to measure the quality and availability of services provided. That is perhaps an old-fashioned view, but I hope that it sounds a note of caution.
Clause 20 and the schedules make possible the use of designated police support staff. That is an interesting development, as it is clear that those designated will be able to do nearly everything that a full constable can do. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that that is so and say what length of training is likely to be given to police support staff? How soon does he expect that significant numbers of support staff will be in post?
It is no secret, as other noble Lords have said, that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been severely overstretched recently, particularly in hours of darkness. Police numbers have been limited by the wise requirement to recruit on a 50:50 basis. The Chief Constable himself has commented on the shortage of detectives, who are so necessary to deal with organised crime, extortion and racketeering. For those reasons, I have suggested that the police services of the whole English-speaking world should be asked to second suitable volunteer officers, particularly detectives, for service in Northern Ireland, whether on fixed terms or permanently.
I derive much encouragement from Clause 18, but I query whether three years will be long enough in all cases and whether the restriction in proposed new subsection (3) is really necessary. Incoming police officers of the kind that I have mentioned could be regarded as being neither Protestant nor Catholic, and thus additional to 50:50 recruitment. Will the noble and learned Lord undertake to discuss that idea with his colleagues? I hope that he will not reply that everything will be fine with the help of the new support staff. Most of the new support staff, by definition, will be beginners. What is needed is experience, and keen volunteers from the police services of the English-speaking world could provide that vital quality. Even a small number of such volunteers could supply new ideas and creativity at all levels. I commend the idea to noble Lords and the Government. There must be police officers of Ulster origin currently serving in many countries. They could give a lead to their colleagues to volunteer for a challenging assignment. Will the noble and learned Lord respond to the idea of appealing to the police services of the English-speaking world?

499
I welcome anything that can improve public order and inter-communal harmony in Northern Ireland. I expect that we shall make some improvements to the Bill as it passes through its later stages.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I give the Bill a broad welcome. I firmly believe that for the peace process in Northern Ireland to be soundly based, the police service must have the broad consent of all sectors of the community. I welcome this measure and other government measures that are intended to achieve that end. I wish that some critics of the Government's policies were a little more generous at times, given the worthiness and importance of what they are trying to do.
I am a member of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. As a member of one of its sub-committees, I was able to visit in Belfast some months ago the first batch of police trainees under the 50:50 basis. I was impressed by the quality of the trainees: their abilities, commitment, enthusiasm and mature attitude towards the task facing them when they graduate from the training scheme. I went away feeling more confident in the future of policing in Northern Ireland than I previously had been.
It is essential to get policing out of party politics. That is not the case at the moment but in the fullness of time we must secure that. It is not right for members of the police service to be political footballs and it does not make for a good relationship between the community and the police when such arguments occur. It is very welcome that the SDLP supports the new arrangements and is on the Policing Board. It is welcome that the Catholic Church, which previously was not happy, is now supportive of the arrangements, as are the Irish Government and the American Government.
The question is: what about Sinn Fein? Does it matter that it is keeping a distance? I very much hope that direct rule will end soon and that devolved government will be restored before the elections in May. It matters that Sinn Fein is keeping a distance, first, because it has members on the executive and representatives in the Assembly. It therefore matters that it should be committed to policing in Northern Ireland and not remain detached from it. Secondly, it matters because it is important not simply that the Catholics of Northern Ireland join the police service but that Catholics from west Belfast and Derry do so as well. Those are crucial areas.
My noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that Sinn Fein's view is—I must get the wording right—that it has said that young Catholics are free to join the police although its policy is that it does not want them to. In other words, it is against that, but it has said, "All right, if they want to join, they are free to do so". Perhaps that represents some progress.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that Sinn Fein has not condemned attacks
500
on those people? Although it has said that they are free to join, they apparently may continue being attacked—there are threats on their lives.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I have not heard such condemnation from Sinn Fein. Any threats to police officers are to be utterly deplored, as are threats to prison officers and others doing their public duty in Northern Ireland. We cannot have a proper peace process when people are making threats or not condemning threats. I am with the noble Viscount in his sentiments.
I welcome Clause 18, as did my noble friend Lady Goudie. The fixed-term appointments will open the way to people having three-year appointments in the police service. The real issue in that regard is that members of the Garda from the Republic could have short-term appointments in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Apart from the considerations of principle, that appears to be a good thing in view of the difficulties in recruitment in terms of overall numbers, which have been referred to. I hope that such secondments can be made quickly.
I turn to the ombudsman. I, too, believe that it is important that the ombudsman should not be a party-political football. My noble and learned friend referred to government amendments. It is desirable that they should be produced; we shall have to wait for the details over the next few days. I shall make three points about the ombudsman. First, my understanding is that under the Bill the ombudsman may investigate current police policy and practice, not past police policy and practice. However, if the policy has continued from the past to the present, that could be investigated because it is still current police policy and practice. I believe that that is right.
Secondly, there is a limitation in that such an investigation can be held if there is significant public concern. That is probably a higher test than that suggested by Patten, who used the phrase, "if it gave rise to difficulties". I prefer the lower test set by Patten, particularly because there may be matters of police policy and practice that would need to be investigated which might not give cause for public concern but which would be known to the ombudsman. The Patten wording is slightly preferable to that in the Bill.
My third point about the ombudsman relates to Clause 11. Subsection (4) states:
"The Chief Constable … may refer to the Secretary of State a requirement to supply information",
and it gives the Secretary of State the power to say that such information should not be disclosed. I understand that the Government's view is that they may amend that provision so that disclosure of information would be prevented, not the powers to investigate. If so, that is probably a change for the better.
In conclusion, I welcome the fact that the Bill will go to Grand Committee. That will give us a proper opportunity to debate the detailed provisions thoroughly.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, this debate has illustrated once again the deep divisions in Northern Ireland regarding the police force. Policing in Northern Ireland has always been a contentious issue. The police were seen for many years to be an arm of the Unionist government. As such, they were disliked and hated by the Catholic community. Significant changes have been made in recent years.
We know that the Bill will not have an opposed Second Reading and that amendments may be made in Committee. I, too, feel—I am not of the unionist tradition, having fought unionism all my political life—that Weston Park was unnecessary. The previous Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson, piloted through the legislation to bring into being the recommendations of the Patten committee. I believe that he was happy with what he had concluded in bringing that Bill before Parliament. He was vilified and hated by Sinn Fein, by the IRA and by their paramilitaries. Then we heard that we were to go to Weston Park. Considering that Peter Mandelson, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, had brought to the statute book the original 2002 Bill, I am not too sure whether, had he now been Secretary of State, he would have agreed to this further instalment of police regulation.
I turn to the subject of the Bill. There are many technical features in it at which no one could take offence. But the main objections that we have heard come from Northern Ireland. We heard them from the noble Lords, Lord Kilclooney and Lord Maginnis, and they express the concerns of their community. But many other people in the Catholic community do not take kindly to the prospect of former murderers— paramilitary people who have committed the most heinous offences—being allowed to sit on police boards or DPPs in relation to Northern Ireland.
I would also find that very hard to take. As I said, I am not a unionist, but I have carried many victims of paramilitaries to various churchyards throughout Northern Ireland. I would find it very hard to accept if those responsible for such crimes were now sitting on DPPs and giving their opinions on how the police force should be organised and run in Northern Ireland. I would find that very difficult.
My other concern—I believe it will remain a concern as long as I live—relates to the attempt to achieve balanced police recruitment as between Catholics and Protestants. How does one do that? Does it say on the application form, "Are you a Catholic?". Does it go further and ask, "Do you go to mass on a Sunday? Are you mixed up in Catholic organisations? Do you believe in divorce or abortion?". How does one define a "Catholic"? It would have been more honest to ask, "Are you a nationalist? Do you believe in the unity of Northern Ireland or do you believe in the present status quo?". The same applies to a Protestant. If a Protestant is a potential recruit, is he asked, "Are you a Protestant?".
Of course, Northern Ireland can cover a whole range of religions. A person could be a Free Presbyterian. That would mean that he was absolutely
502
and totally opposed to the Belfast, or Good Friday, agreement. But he is a Protestant. Therefore, under the present legislation he would qualify to sit on DPPs. There are various religions in Northern Ireland—I could roll off 101 of them. One can see that on a Saturday night in the Belfast Telegraph where people are invited to go to different services.
I believe that many aspects of the Belfast agreement were well-intentioned. We were told that it would bring about parity of esteem between Catholics and Protestants—that is, one would no longer feel oppressed and the other would no longer feel superior in any way. But that has been carried a little too far. Under this parity of esteem, this morning I received postcards wishing me a merry Christmas in Chinese, Vietnamese, Ulster Scots, Irish Gaelic and, down at the bottom, English.
Parity of esteem is being carried too far, and exactly the same thing is happening in relation to recruitment. Perhaps we can find out in Committee or perhaps I could ask some of my police friends what questions are asked on the application form. Does it ask: "Are you a Catholic?". Would the answer to that be, "I may have been a Catholic" or "I was born a Catholic but I have lapsed"? If a person was a lapsed Catholic, he would get a junior position in the police.
Therefore, all kinds of difficulties are associated with appointing people because of their religion. I believe I shall have to query this matter until I get an answer. It would have been far more honest to ask, "Are you a nationalist?" or "Are you a unionist?". Such questions also bring problems. If a person answered in the affirmative and said, "Yes, I am a nationalist", that would mean, in effect, "I am against the state of Northern Ireland"; it would mean, "I want to see a united Ireland and I am not happy with the present status quo". If a person is a unionist or a Protestant, that is supposed to indicate that he is happy with the status quo. There again, we have the seeds of discontent and division. We have had that situation in Northern Ireland for many years and I cannot see any reason why it should go away.
One of the most heartening and optimistic things that I heard over the past few months was the speech of the Prime Minister at the Custom House in Belfast when, for the first time, he used the term, "acts of completion". I believe that he was telling the IRA, "Before you get any further concessions, you will have to make it clear to us that you have given up your ways of violence, whether that means giving up all your arms or whether it means saying that the IRA will fade into insignificance".
I considered that speech to be very important. I tried to take whatever measures I could to allay my feelings of optimism and respect for the Prime Minister when he made that speech. I hope that he does not depart from that position. However, there is now a feeling in Northern Ireland that this Bill represents another step towards making further concessions to the IRA. One dangerous issue that would arise here would be if any attempt were made to put convicted murderers or criminals on to a DPP.

503
There is another aspect to the Bill. There are many hundreds of unsolved murders in Northern Ireland. Many people have not been made accountable for carrying out the most atrocious murders. Therefore, Sinn Fein or the IRA could pick out one of their men who had committed murders but had not been apprehended by the police or convicted before a court and they could appoint him to a DPP. But what would happen if one of those people were appointed to a DPP and it was discovered that he was a member of the DUP and had been involved in murder before becoming a member? I have not heard what would happen in those circumstances.
For all those reasons, the unionists have expressed an unwillingness in relation to the proposals. I want to make to them a suggestion that has already been put forward. I feel as badly as they do about the concerns that I have just mentioned, but I believe that in Committee we may be able to rectify some of the most glaring wrongs in the Bill. However—I believe I said this to the previous Secretary of State at a meeting that we had with your Lordships—it is right that the unionists should warn the Secretary of State that we should not be seen to make concessions in advance of the IRA. The IRA could make some concessions to enable us to bring forward more concessionary legislation.
I believe that we shall have to face the issue of the DPPs and the other, far more dangerous issue of permitting convicted criminals who are on the run in the Republic of Ireland to go back into Northern Ireland without being charged before a court. Those are two major issues. Having said that, I could not do anything other than support the Bill.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, in speaking in support of the Bill, it is clear to me that there are two major elements to it. First, bearing in mind the experience to date of the earlier Act, there is some minor tidying-up to be done and, secondly, there is the need to move further forward in taking account of the Patten report.
My first wonderfully pleasant duty is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on brevity. He was followed by the "usual suspects". I regret the negativity of their comments. I know of the real concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth—in particular in regard to the on-the-runs and the League of Families. But it is important to understand that concessions to some people are rights to others. Reference can be made to the Sinn Fein agenda on the one hand, and to the Patten agenda on the other. It is my view that, until people associated with Sinn Fein are able to sit on a police board, there will not be success in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond mentioned pensions. I believe that we shall have to look more closely at the detail on pensions. If there are to be two sets of accounts—I have no objection to that—those dispensing retirements and making certain that pensions are paid, and possibly paid early,
504
should be aware of the consequences. Pensions can be very expensive. I should hate to think that there would be a total de-linking of the finances of the Policing Board and the financing of pensions They need to be examined together.
When the noble Lord, Lord Magirinis, spoke, again we had the negativity to which I have referred. His comments on 50:50 recruitment and on the 250/26 numbers surely tell us that we have to go forward. If that is the reality today, it will clearly not do in terms of the future policing of Northern Ireland.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred to his experience serving as an independent member of the policing board. He appeared somewhat dissatisfied with the training in the Police Academy of Northern Ireland. The report of the oversight commissioner makes reference to the fact that there are informal contacts between the police service and police training facilities in Ireland, Scotland and England but the PSNI has not yet developed collaboration agreements with those institutions. One answer to the noble Viscount's comments is that training is shared and people benefit from other institutions, not merely the institution to which he referred. My hope is that, now the negative comments have been made, noble Lords can get down to business.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I think that I did not refer to the quality of the training. I was merely putting forward the need for a new policing college. So far as I am aware, I had nothing to say about collaboration. Of course, greater collaboration is needed, but that was not the issue to which I referred, I was not, as a member of the policing board, criticising the training that is taking place. I was criticising the Government for not helping us to put into place a new purpose-built police college.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I would not detract from what the noble Viscount has said, but clearly there is some degree of dissatisfaction in that he believes that a new college is required. It may well be that, with the efficient use of resources, it is not necessary and other institutions could be used.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, referred to the notice given to those on the board of meetings taking place. I should have thought that that could be sorted out—two members of the board are present.
It seemed to me that the gist of what was said was: "We don't mind disagreement, so long as there is no change". I believe that there has to be change in Northern Ireland.
We heard positive comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and from the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Dubs. It is clear that there will be some testing of the clauses on the ombudsman and, indeed, in terms of whether fixed-term appointments should be restricted to those referred to in the Bill.
I often think these days that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is an honorary unionist. Perhaps he is a non-conformist nationalist Catholic. Perhaps that is the

505
category to which he now aspires. Many of the points about which the noble Lord complained may niggle and they may annoy, but they are a sight better than violence.
Yes, we support the Bill, because it takes us further towards Patten. But I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister. Reference has been made by several noble Lords to the text. Is it suggested that the text should be debated in Committee; or will it be put on the shelf? Can these provisions be introduced, as the result of a reference to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, without their being thoroughly tested? I should have thought that it was in the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord speaks that such clauses should be properly tested and not be brought in at the last minute without such testing. It would be useful to have that assurance.
Underlying the debate is the fact that whether people like it or not—many people here do not—20 to 25 per cent of the voting population feel that they wish to entrust their vote to Sinn Fein. Unless Sinn Fein is on board and inside all the tents of Northern Ireland, we shall not be able to go forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to Mandelson being gutted and Patten being gutted. I trust that your Lordships will have the guts to move forward.
6.18 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, this has been a debate of the usual high quality on this subject. My noble friend Lord Glentoran referred to the support we have given to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I am sure that the whole House will share the pleasure expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, at the praise that the board has received from many quarters.
However, as my noble friend Lord Glentoran said, we have one or two concerns about the relationship of the board with the Chief Constable. These concern what we regard as a basic dilution of the powers of the Chief Constable and hence the Secretary of State which we fear will be the inevitable effect of the Bill.
The first is the reduction in the number of conditions under which the Chief Constable is entitled to withhold information in the reports that he makes to the DPP. Under the terms of the 2000 Act there were four such conditions, but Clause 8(2) of the Bill before the House effectively restricts these to three by the significant omission of the condition that disclosure would be likely to prejudice the detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders—the fourth condition in the 2000 Act. The omission of that condition from this Bill strikes right at the operational independence of the Chief Constable and I gather that it is certainly not the practice in forces on the mainland. The Chief Constable would be under a statutory obligation to provide reports to the policing board relating to the conduct of ongoing investigations. In the view of this side of the House, that is unacceptable.
506
My noble friend referred to a second related point. Clause 9 concerns the grounds on which the Chief Constable can appeal to the Secretary of State against a requirement to report to the DPP. The same condition, that a report would prejudice ongoing investigations, is again removed. We feel that the changes from the 2000 Act represent a significant and serious weakening of the powers of the Secretary of State and of the Chief Constable.
I join in the compliments from all sides of the House paid to the Lord Privy Seal on the openness with which the Bill has been approached, but I have to tell him that we shall want to revisit those points at a later stage in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Glentoran referred to Clause 10 relating to the number of members of the board required to initiate an inquiry under Section 60. Under the 2000 Act the number is 10 out of a total membership of 19. We are not happy with the proposal that that figure should be reduced from 10 to eight with the total strength of the board remaining unchanged. Again, that makes it easier for the board to initiate inquiries under Section 60 and, as I have mentioned before, it has the potential to undermine the powers and, we submit, the effectiveness of the Chief Constable.
Finally, I come to the draft clauses. We welcome the position taken by the Secretary of State that those clauses should not be incorporated into the Bill until he is satisfied that there is clear evidence of acts of completion. I venture to suggest that that is a position we have taken throughout.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take careful note of the concerns of the police expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, as to the assessment by the Secretary of State of when the act of completion has taken place, especially in the early stages. My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth set out the position with her customary clarity and balance.
We welcome the undertaking given by the noble and learned Lord that the ombudsman will not be required to arbitrate in cases that are retrospective to this Bill. With those reservations, we shall support the Bill as a meaningful measure to improve the crucial matter of policing in Northern Ireland. I look forward to the noble and learned Lord's reply.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for what has been said. This has been a sober, serious and well considered debate. At the outset I shall take up two points. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that there had been huge changes, as there have been. They have happened in a short time span which makes it more difficult, for whatever reason, to accept them and to put them fully into effect. The noble Lord also spoke warmly about the quality of those who serve— a word I use advisedly—in the PSNI. I join in his sentiments.
My noble friend Lady Goudie said that the Bill was intended to be a process of incremental change, as it is. It is not meant to be a blockbuster. It is meant to be

507
an improvement based on what we know to have taken place and what we hope may take place. I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, say that they would generally support the Bill, reserving their position, which I welcome, on careful scrutiny of policy and of wording. A number of your Lordships said the same.
I was extremely grateful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that he would adopt a flexible view and that he would not rule out for all time even disagreeable changes. I hope that we can work together in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said that we should discuss the side clauses, if I can call them that. I agree. I am sure that we can find a mechanism, to use his words, of testing them to find their validity, whether they are introduced in the Bill or not. They are important both in their substance and in the mechanism that the Secretary of State has put forward attractively to your Lordships at the outset.
The fourth ground of referral—referred to by a number of noble Lords, and certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in opening and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in closing—is being removed essentially to bring the terms more in line with Patten's recommendations. The board's role is to secure an efficient, effective police service. It seems unreasonable to think that it would wilfully want to do anything that would prejudice the prevention of crime.
The term 50:50 has been mentioned by a number of your Lordships. The Chief Constable's comments were made before the recruitment agent, Grafton, started to carry out the work of recruitment and competition. Grafton was appointed only in September, so I believe that a little more time is required.
On Sinn Fein, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said about the courage of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and, in a different context and with great difficulties, the SDLP. If Sinn Fein is to be a political party, it should have representatives on the hoard. That would make its paramilitary associations much more difficult if not impossible. I do not believe that it is impossible for such a step to take place.
Perhaps I may give an example. Last Friday in Belfast I spoke to the Lord Mayor. He came into the Lord Mayor's parlour wearing his chain and was photographed with it on. He had with him two young people: one a Jewish girl and one a young Palestinian man, who are working as his seconded assistants. After the photograph was taken the Lord Mayor took off his chain, but he had the intelligence and the imagination to ask those two young people from divided communities—God knows—to be there. Of course, the Lord Mayor of Belfast is Alex Maskey.
I do not believe that we need to give up all hope. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Smith. It has been a long journey and it is not yet Finished, but we should not give up on it.
508
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about discretion for the Policing Board to depart from the Secretary of State's long-term objectives. Essentially Patten envisaged that the board would act as the main vehicle to hold the police to account. I believe that it should have some discretion in that area.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord. Smith, that it is foolish and counter-productive to be too negative and always to think that all change is necessarily for the worse. I take his point on the declaration against terrorism that one does not simply want cosmetics, but the position is the same with regard to elections to local councils in Northern Ireland. It is extremely important that a necessary pre-condition should be the declaration. If people do not abide by the declaration, there will have to be a mechanism for removing those people. It is significant, as noble Lords who know Northern Ireland better than I always tell me, that symbols are important. That is a very important symbol and even more than that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, asked about civilianisation and about intimate searches, which is a civil liberty matter. The civilians who will be designated to carry out the intimate searches will be those who are registered medical practitioners or nurses or healthcare professionals. I believe that that is a reasonable approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to the matter of 50:50 recruitment. I hope I dealt with that in the context of replying to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, spoke of the loss of experienced officers, something that has troubled many noble Lords in previous debates. The Chief Constable has the discretion not to allow early retirement. He can decline to allow it if there would be a detrimental loss to the efficiency of the police service. Some hold the view that there is an imbalance in seniority and rank in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which may perhaps be addressed. As I said in my opening remarks, Special Branch and the Crime Department have been brought together under the command of a single assistant chief constable.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, posed the Surrey question: why should criminals be allowed on DPPs when they would not in Surrey? The answer is that Surrey has not had the agonising history of Northern Ireland. We have not had to adopt such remedies in Surrey because it has not suffered those historic wounds to its community, culture and society.
I do not believe that the floodgates will be opened. Let us consider countries such as South Africa and Mozambique. If they can produce a new regime based not on forgetting but on forgiving and on the need to build a better life for the future, I do not understand why we should not trust our friends and colleague; in Northern Ireland to be able to do the same.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, said that we should not seek to persuade Sinn Fein onto the hoard. I disagree. I should be happy to spend as many hours as it took to persuade any member of Sinn Fein to join the board. That would be a real prize of the first

509
importance, and I am not despondent about it occurring in the foreseeable future. She mentioned those who are on the run. That question is constantly posed to me here; I do not think that it is necessarily pertinent to our debate on the Bill, but I know her concerns and have them in my mind, as she knows, even if we shall not always agree about them.
I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that the agreement at Weston Park was only between the two governments. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is right that others were present and that there were various discussions, but if one reads the agreement, it is endorsed only on behalf of the British Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, asked about funding. We shall want to work closely with the board during the coming months to monitor funding and to identify the precise funding implications of setting up DPPs. I commit myself to that. The noble Viscount also asked in detail about the police college site. We have committed ourselves in this House to a return to devolution as soon as possible. We did not want to pre-empt the decision of an Assembly which, we hope, will be reinstated in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, identification and provision of a suitable site can be addressed, and we encourage the police and the Policing Board at least to consider a public/private partnership arrangement.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about recruitment. I entirely agree with him. In fact, we are already receiving applications to the PSNI from people as far afield as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Personally, I think that there is great merit in the noble Lord's suggestion that those who formerly lived in Northern Ireland may be encouraged to contribute again to the land in which they were born.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, on the question of numbers and recruitment, is the noble and learned Lord aware that because the 50:50 rule has denied the Chief Constable the availability of 200 police officers, who must now remain at their desks, so short is the number of police personnel at present that this afternoon, the Chief Constable has had to announce the disbandment of the police band, which performed a great community service in Northern Ireland?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, ill the nature of things, I was not aware of that announcement because for one reason or another I have not left my place since 2.20 p.m. However, I was talking to the Chief Constable on Friday. I know his concerns; he expressed them to me perfectly plainly. To return to my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, we need to give the Grafton procedure an opportunity to work; it was set up only in September. However, I do not dismiss the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, in the slightest.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, there is great virtue in recruitment from outside—a cross-fertilisation that will benefit not only the force in
510
Northern Ireland but the seconding force, even if the secondment is only for three years. Of course, that period is not set in stone, but it may be an appropriate compromise.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Perhaps he will clarify something. He said that the Grafton recruiting procedure had been in place only since September. Did he by any chance mean September 2001?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords, 2002. If I am wrong, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord, including sackcloth and ashes in the envelope, but I do not believe that I am.
The question of insufficient notice of Policing Board meetings is really an internal matter for the board, in the same way that all such organisations need to regulate their own procedures. My noble friend Lord Dubs asked about the ombudsman. I said at the outset that we have given careful thought to the ombudsman's concerns. I reiterate my undertaking to table amendments at an early stage. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned experienced constables, and I agree with him about that.
My noble friend Lord Fitt asked what would happen if a DPP member was subsequently found to be a murderer. The answer to that is to be found in Schedule 3(7) to the 2000 Act. The board or a council can remove a member of a DPP if he has been convicted of a criminal offence committed after the date of his appointment. I know that that was not the main thrust of my noble friend's question, but that can also occur if he is unable or unfit—I stress that word—to discharge his functions as a member of the DPP. So there is that latitude, opportunity and discretion.
I know that, rightly, we shall spend a good deal of time and trouble in Committee on the Bill. I welcome that. That is not cosmetic; we have done good work in the past by paying careful, scrupulous attention to fine detail. It was a good step to introduce the Bill in this House, because there is a vast amount of experience and expertise here that is never deployed on a narrow basis.
I confirm that the Grafton recruitment for civilians commenced in 2002. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (Amendment of section 46(1)) Order 2002
6.37 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th November be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as a result of much debate on the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, I said that a review was being undertaken to consult with a wide range of

511
organisations in Northern Ireland about their inclusion within the remit of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate. I also promised to write to all noble Lords about the progress of those consultations. I fulfilled that promise on 24th October.
Twenty organisations were involved in the consultation process. I hope that your Lordships will feel that we have tabled the amendment order at the earliest reasonable opportunity. We have done so hoping to create a settled list of agencies that come within the remit.
Following the consultation process, we have decided to add an additional eight organisations, which are listed in the order. Some of them do not immediately seem to have obvious links to the criminal justice system, but the underlying and, I hope, unifying rationale for their inclusion is that they all exercise a role in the investigative and prosecutorial processes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th November be approved. —(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for moving the order tonight. It addresses a part of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 that one might called unfinished business. I thank the noble and learned Lord and the Northern Ireland Office for the courtesy that they have shown in keeping me—and, I am sure, other Members of your Lordships' House—in touch with their thinking and the consultation process.
I have no reason to believe—if I did, I would not necessarily wish to air it—that there is any great dissension about the organisations included in the Bill by the order. I support the order.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord and the Northern Ireland Office for keeping us informed, and I welcome the eight additions.
I have one query. Were the Financial Services Authority and the Inland Revenue consulted about being included? If they were, what were their responses?
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I welcome the order. It has come to the House somewhat belatedly. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will recall my criticism that, whereas ordinary individuals such as myself or members of the police are meant to change and agree to things with huge expedition, statutory agencies appear to be able to adopt a tardiness that puzzles me. I cannot understand why it took some of the bodies that are listed so long to acquiesce to the idea of having a justice inspector.
I speak not out of any spite, because I have considerable regard for the huge ability of the Police Ombudsman. However, I believe that it is important that someone occupying as sensitive a position as the Police Ombudsman—she had some initial difficulties
512
in that post—should not be without oversight and should not have a free hand. In that respect. I welcome the order.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall answer the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. The FSA and the Inland Revenue were consulted, as were the Census Office, Customs and Excise, the Electoral Office, the Northern Ireland Court Service and the Serious Fraud Office. Representations were made, and we considered them carefully, before coming to the conclusions that I outlined and which appear in the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Northern Ireland) Order 2002
6.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, Thai the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, broadly speaking, the provisions of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 are those contained in the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000. That Act relates to England and Wales; Scotland has its own Act, coming into effect on 1st January 2003. The draft order prohibits the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur; makes it a criminal offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine, to keep animals primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur; and provides for the compensation of existing businesses.
Before suspension, the Assembly in Belfast voted, on 7th October, to approve all of the provisions contained in the order. Because of recent history, it is now our duty to attend to such matters. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved. —(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I support the Motion.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am happy to support the proposals.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I begin by making an obvious point, which applies to the five remaining Northern Ireland orders before us. The subject matter of the orders was being dealt with by the Northern Ireland Assembly, prior to its suspension. I imagine that all of your Lordships would prefer that it was still being dealt with by the MLAs. However, I know that your Lordships will be aware that only the republican movement can return us to that situation, by bringing about the necessary acts of completion so craved by the vast majority of people in the Province.

513
Turning to the order, I can report that my Ulster Unionist colleagues in the Assembly had one principal complaint about the legislation, when it was before them in the form of a Bill—namely, the compensation of those affected by the ban on fur farming. I am pleased to say that that difficulty was subsequently resolved by an amendment, which is included in the order at Article 5(4). Given that, I am happy to support the order.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, even when we considered the Bill—now an Act—affecting England and Wales, it was obscure to me why fur farming should be considered to be in any way more cruel than the farming of animals for other purposes. On those grounds—whatever the vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly—there may be a case for not insisting on complete uniformity throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hylton to some extent, although not necessarily on the point about conformity. Like my noble friend, I queried and opposed the Bill relating to England and Wales, as it went through the House.
A vegan could support the order with a clear conscience. As I understand it, most vegans believe that it is wrong for man to kill or exploit animals for any purpose. I do not agree with that philosophy, but I respect it. I respect also the logical consistency of the vegan position. However, it beats me how any carnivore can support such an illiberal order. After all, it is a matter of total indifference to an animal being killed whether it is being killed for food, clothing, footwear, sport, medical research, cosmetic research or military research. All that is important, from the point of the view of the animal, is that death should be as painless and as quick as possible.
Obviously, neither my noble friend nor I will be able to budge the Government tonight. However, I must ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal whether the Northern Ireland Assembly—if and when it sits again—could restore the status quo, if it changed its mind and wished to do so. I presume that it could, but it would be good to have confirmation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I will check that, although that question was not uppermost in my mind. I was sorry to see that my noble friend Lord Fitt was not in his place, when the noble Lord spoke of vegans. He would have wanted us to ask, "Are you a Roman Catholic vegan or a Protestant vegan?".
As the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said, the matter was fully debated and supported by everyone because of the amendment that the Ulster Unionists obtained. Notionally, the Assembly might be able to change its mind; practically, I doubt that it would wish to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Harbours (Northern Ireland) Order 2002
6.47 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the order will confer functions on the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland in relation to the regulation of certain harbour authorities and for connected purposes. It is the final element in a package of measures to improve the accountability of the Northern Ireland trust ports and safeguard the public interest with regard to their commercial activities.
It is a short order with only seven articles. There are three main provisions. The first is a power to enable the department, if necessary, to issue directions to designated harbour authorities to safeguard the public interest. The second relates to the power of the department to obtain information. Thirdly, it will empower the department to issue codes of practice.
The order is short and seems entirely suitable. On that basis, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing the order before us. I suppose that I ought to confess to some form of interest. I am the first of four generations not to have been on the board of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners.
That having been said, it is an important order, even if it may not seem so tonight. The trust ports—and, indeed, Lame, which is a privately owned port, not a trust port—are the lifeblood of Northern Ireland and have been for many years, starting with Belfast and its shipbuilding industry in Victorian days. Without going into history, I must say that the port of Belfast was set up many years ago by the Victorians for the benefit of the people of Belfast. There have been hiccups, but, when we look back, we see that, over the years, the harbour commissioners and the port have played a huge role in Northern Ireland's economic welfare and growth. That is not to belittle the leisure ports of Coleraine, Warrenpoint and, indeed, Londonderry. They are all historical but, for anyone who visits them, they are seriously busy, hard-working ports. They are particularly vital to industry in those areas.
The part of the order that I welcome is the provision which allows the department to ease the financial controls and certain constraints under which the ports have operated and opens up further these areas for public scrutiny. Overall, I welcome the order.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I want to be more quizzical about the order. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is correct in that there

515
has been good stewardship by the commissioners. How possible is it for that to continue? I am particularly struck by paragraph 4, which states:
"The department may give to a designated harbour authority directions of a general or specific nature as to the exercise by that authority of its functions".
That seems to suggest that the department can say what the authority does or does not do. In the explanatory memorandum there is a suggestion that:
"It is not considered the proposed Bill will have any direct cost implications for any government department or other public or private body or individual".
It occurs to me that those who run harbours in Northern Ireland will want vessels to come to those harbours—no doubt, from England, Scotland and Wales. I t has been my experience that vessels get bigger and bigger and they often have wagons, goods and so forth on them. It strikes me that a smaller harbour commissioner could take the view that the authority would like to progress, do well and make plans. Yet, the department may say that it does do not have the environment to cope with the wagons on new vessels coming into the ports. I wonder how that will marry together in terms of concerns that the Department of the Environment may have with the wishes of the harbour commissioners to do well and prosper. Indeed, one may reach a point where the harbour commissioners have planned for expansion and put forward facilities and so forth but that comes to a stop because there are no facilities for onward transmission of goods.
I should like to know how that will fit together. It seems that one could even reach a point where vessels are of such a size that if they are not able to enter a particular port, that may have some impact on the finances of many people, including employees. I should like to understand how this is meant to fit together.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I support the order which seeks to improve the public accountability of the trust port authorities in Northern Ireland. I particularly welcome the greater involvement of district councillors in the running of port authorities. In view of the fact that the Assembly is in suspension, the scope to widen the influence of local councillors is a positive development.
I am also pleased that the order will allow trust ports to compete on a commercial basis in the global market. Indeed, the order puts Northern Ireland ahead of Great Britain in that area and potentially gives the Province a rare commercial advantage. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for that support. I endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, regarding local involvement. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, perhaps I can make it plain. The department does not envisage involving itself in port operational matters. I am happy to put on the record that it is intended as a reserve power which would be used, if necessary, to safeguard the public interest—perhaps, for instance. in
516
relation to a land transaction relating to land which was under the control and management of the harbour authority. That is the only intention.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002
6.55 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is another excellent order, but there is a word or two that I can further say on its behalf. The order seeks to amend and consolidate the law in Northern Ireland and to introduce provisions broadly in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Insolvency Act 2000 is our base. Disqualification for unfitness, which is a critically important means of protecting the public from those who abuse limited liability, can, at present, be achieved only by court proceedings. The order introduces disqualification by consent as an alternative to court proceedings through the director giving an undertaking to the department. Therefore, it will be quicker and cheaper, and will avoid the use of lawyers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I have no difficulty in agreeing to this order. During my time in business, it took far too long for this type of procedure to be taken with company directors who had defaulted. It should be quicker, faster and save money.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we, too, support the order. It may be not before time if the recession bites even deeper, though I am happy to note that so far Northern Ireland's economy has been buoyant enough to weather out the storms of contemporary economic forces.
Lord Laird: My Lords, the House will be interested to note that when the provision of this and the insolvency order were debated in the Assembly, no one other than the Minister responsible contributed to the proceedings. That illustration demonstrates that there is agreement among all political parties in relation to the provision before them. However, the most notable point is that the Minister who introduced and advocated the legislation was the Ulster Unionist Minister, Sir Reg Empey. Therefore, your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I am delighted to support the order.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002
6.57 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to introduce new legislation relating to three important issues. It will bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom and ensure compliance with European obligations.
Part II provides enabling powers to achieve transposition of EC Directive 96/61 on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. This builds on the current system. The details of the new controls have been set out in a set of draft regulations which were published for consultation in August 2002. Part II has three other purposes. First, it will provide a general power for the Department of the Environment to transpose other EU directives by way of regulations, thereby avoiding the need for primary legislation. However, any measure intended to be implemented in that way will be required to be designated by order and any regulations made under this provision will be subject to full scrutiny and consultation in the normal way.
Secondly, the order provides new transitional provisions in respect of waste disposal licences under the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. Thirdly, it gives a new power for the department to make grants to any body having among its objects furtherance of the disposal of waste or, more generally, prevention or control of environmental pollution. This power will be used to further the objectives in the department's waste management strategy.
Air quality is dealt with in Part III. That provides a legislative framework to deliver Northern Ireland's contribution to objectives and targets for improving air quality. Those are contained in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In addition, Part III brings about compliance with EC Directive 96/62EC. Part III also puts a statutory requirement on the Department of the Environment to draw up an air quality strategy for Northern Ireland.
Part IV deals with areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) and will provide for the better protection and management of those valuable sites that are equivalent to sites of special scientific interest in Great Britain. The provisions of Part IV will also help address the requirements of the EC Habitats Directive by ensuring that Northern Ireland can better protect sites which, in addition to being ASSIs, have also merited designation under European legislation.
The order replaces the existing legislation for ASSIs in the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.
There are improvements to some of the procedures; for example, greater flexibility in the ways that amendments to site boundaries or citations can be introduced as well as providing a statement on how a site can be best managed in the interests of conservation.
Part IV also contains measures to ensure more effective protection of ASSIs. Safeguards are built in for landowners, including the right of appeal to the Plannings Appeal Commission against a decision made by the department.
The draft order is a combination of three separate Bills, each of which were before the Assembly at the date of suspension. Each had received its second stage and each had completed or was at Committee stage. Subject to any correction from the noble Lord, Lord Laird, it is fair to say that the provisions of the draft order reflect the outcome of that scrutiny. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved.(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, of the orders we are debating today, this gives me most concern. In discussions outside the Chamber, the noble and learned Lord agreed that we might find a better way of scrutinising such orders while Stormont is suspended.
I am unhappy because there is no way that as spokesman for the Opposition I can be briefed to challenge anyone on such matters. However, I am involved in the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill that is currently before this House. I know of its complexities and difficulties and our dissatisfaction with it. I took part in the access to the countryside legislation which included habitats and ASSIs and the arguments, debates and discussions we had in relation to that.
I do not know how the trading of emissions permissions and so forth will work and whether they are contained in the Bills. I do not know the detail of the three Bills and whether they are acceptable. However, as we have debated the way in which we shall handle such Bills in future, and as they have been passed in part by the Northern Ireland Assembly, I support the order. I merely wanted to place that fact on record.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may respond immediately to that most helpful intervention. Having listened to concerns expressed by many noble Lords on these issues, it seems to me that one way forward might be for me to offer the fullest possible officials' briefing on any order your Lordships are unhappy about. I shall arrange that in plenty of time and leave it for your Lordships to approach me.
Secondly, some of the orders are very bulky and it might be possible to sift through them. I am content to go along that line and, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, knows, I have offered to do so. Perhaps we can follow more flexible procedures in the future.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about the difficulties of dealing with orders relating to primary legislation in Northern Ireland. I welcome the Minister's statement and look forward to an improvement. Being presented with a 56-page order on important and complicated matters on a take-it-or-leave-it basis is not a satisfactory way of proceeding.
The Minister said that the order brought Northern Ireland legislation into line. Interestingly, the Minister in another place used a different but more accurate phrase. He said that it brought it broadly into line. There are differences in detail and it is important that they are scrutinised properly. The approach will vary from subject to subject and order to order. This is an important order. Three Northern Ireland Assembly Bills, each at different stages, are being rolled together into a short debate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis in this House. That is not satisfactory.
The first two Bills—one on pollution, prevention and control and the other on local air quality maintenance—had completely or substantially gone through the Committee stage in the Assembly and a number of amendments had been made. That is clearly a basis for approving them today. The scrutiny of the third Bill had not been completed by the Assembly. It is therefore not satisfactory that it comes to us on that basis. Some of us remember the detailed and interesting debates we had on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill as it passed through this House. Schedule 9 to that Bill deals with these matters and covers substantially the same ground. However, there appear to be differences in detail and as the responsibility for the legislation rests for the time being with this Parliament, it would have been useful to have been able to study those discrepancies.
My honourable friend Sue Doughty, a member of the Standing Committee on delegated legislation in another place, asked a series of detailed questions on this matter. I shall not trouble the Minister, with his encyclopaedic knowledge, by asking him the same questions today. That would waste everyone's time. My honourable friend rightly raised many important matters relating to the creation of ASSIs in Northern Ireland; for example, amendments and changes to them, their notification and management and possible compulsory purchase schemes, which some of us remember discussing in relation to the CROW Act. However, there was then no proper forum for obtaining sensible answers and scrutiny. I understand the Minister promised to write to her but she has not yet received a reply. No doubt she will do so.
I have expressed our general disquiet about an order, the details of which have not been properly scrutinised in the Assembly, coming to this House and being presented in this way. Clearly, future orders will not have been dealt with by the Assembly, so the difficulty will arise more frequently. However, I thank
520
the Minister for the progress that will be made with regard to future discussions. We are happy to support the order which needs to go through
Lord Laird: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal on his suggestions for ways of scrutinising these rather cumbersome and complicated pieces of legislation, particularly as the workload from the Assembly will begin to trail off in terms of scrutiny. I very much welcome what the noble and learned Lord said.
For a variety of reasons, the environment in Northern Ireland did not receive the amount of attention it deserved during some of the years of direct rule. However, devolution offered the Province's politicians the chance to make up for lost ground, and it was an opportunity that they grabbed with both hands. Evidence of this is provided by the fact that this order combines the provisions of no fewer than three Assembly Bills dedicated to improving the environment.
There are three main themes in the order on which I wish to comment briefly. First, the legislation is necessary to ensure compliance with the EU's IPPC directive. This is something that I welcome as an advance in ensuring a high level of protection for the environment through the prevention or reduction of emissions to air, water and land as a result of industrial activities. A less polluted environment for future generations and ourselves is a goal towards which every politician and political party in the Province and beyond should be working. It is certainly something that the Ulster Unionist Party is seeking to achieve.
The second principal area dealt with in the order concerns air quality. Again, these provisions are necessary to ensure compliance with an EU directive. The order will also satisfy the Executive's P FG commitment to have in place by May next year a policy and legislative framework to deliver Northern Ireland's contribution to targets in the UK air quality strategy. The people of Northern Ireland have a right to clean air and the order will help to deliver that.
Adequate resources are, of course, vital, and I particularly welcome the £1 million per annum grant package for district councils to assist them in assessing local air quality, identifying problems and providing necessary remedies. I would be grateful if, when he comes to reply, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal could give an assurance that this figure will be kept under review and that more cash will be made available when required.
The third and final part of the order to which I wish to refer incorporates measures to allow for the better protection and management of areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs). These locations represent the finest examples of semi-natural and species sites to be found in Northern Ireland because of their fauna, flora or geographic features. My colleagues and I fully support the protection of these areas as assets which should be enjoyed by future generations.

521
We also recognise, however, that a degree of sensitivity needs to be exercised with regard to ASSIs and, in particular, how they affect the farming community. The Province's farmers are not opposed to the designation of natural habitat sites, provided that they are managed in a practical way. However, given that the local farming community has suffered so much in recent years because of BSE and foot and mouth disease, leading 'to a consequential dramatic drop in incomes, I believe that it is vital that it is not made to face additional financial burdens.
The obvious solution is for the Government to provide good management and to work in partnership with farmers, rather than to increase the perception that ASSIs will simply add to levels of bureaucracy. However, I am confident that the desirable spirit of partnership can be created which, in turn, will be of benefit to everyone involved. I support the order.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I associate myself with those Members of the House who feel that the present procedures are not adequate for scrutinising such complicated legislation. I very much welcome the offer made by my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench to arrange, if requested by noble Lords, for briefings by officials. The point that he made earlier this afternoon, that we might consider discussing measures of this kind in a Grand Committee, could be a useful way of enabling us to engage more fully in some of the issues.
We could spend several weeks on this particular measure. However, I shall not succumb to the temptation of going into too many details, much as I would like to because some of the issues are familiar to me from my days when I was a Minister in Northern Ireland. I shall resist that because I do not have the background, nor do I have knowledge of what the Assembly did or did not discuss.
I support the suggestion that we should look hard at the way in which we deal with such measures. They are crucially important to the people of Northern Ireland and we owe it to them to do so as thoroughly as possible.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, we on these Benches also support much better provision for scrutinising Northern Ireland orders. Could the usual channels consult among themselves in order that some mechanism can be agreed and be up and running in the new year?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for a very constructive review of the general matters. My noble friend Lord Dubs said that if we changed things we could spend several weeks discussing the issue, so I immediately withdraw my offer.
522
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked whether matters would be kept under review in the context of funding—yes. He then, thinking me to be an innocent in these matters, asked me to assure him that there would be more cash forthcoming—no.
As to the specific points of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the ASSI Bill was scrutinised by the Environment Committee in the Assembly and amendments were added in response to the Committee's comments; and Sue Doughty's questions have been responded to in writing by my honourable friend the Minister, Angela Smith.
The idea of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, is better than mine in terms of attempting to offer solutions. I believe that we should differentiate between orders in order of magnitude and importance first. I am more than happy to reiterate my offer for officials' briefings. They are extremely competent and efficient and well equipped to deal with these matters, as all noble Lords who have dealt with the Northern Ireland Office will know.
In the Working Practices Leader's Group Report, which met such triumphant acclamation, we agreed to consider appointing a committee on statutory instruments. That may be one way of improving scrutiny. But I recognise that that may be some way down the road and not ready for what your Lordships want. I am more than willing to be as flexible as I possibly can. I think that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that the usual channels should look at this matter with a degree of urgency, is a good one.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 2002
7.18 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in the rest of the United Kingdom by the enactment of the Insolvency Act. The legislation had passed Committee stage in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The main purpose of the order is to assist small companies in financial difficulties. The Assembly Committee considering the original Bill expressed some concern about rights given to claim in respect of dwelling houses owned under joint tenancies in deceased insolvencies but it had been decided that the wording in the order should stand. It is essential that it should if creditors in deceased insolvencies in Northern Ireland are to have the same rights as their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There was consultation. The replies received were favourable. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved. (Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Laird: My Lords, the order will ensure that small companies in Northern Ireland can use the same company rescue procedures as their counterparts in Great Britain. The benefit of so doing is to remove the
524
potential disadvantages that local businesses in Northern Ireland could have in competing with their counterparts in Great Britain. Again, therefore, I am happy to commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.

  Chechnya
  Chechnya
  Camp X-ray Detainees
  Camp X-ray Detainees
  Thalidomide Trust Beneficiaries: Tax Repayments
  Thalidomide Trust Beneficiaries: Tax Repayments
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  National High Tech Crime Unit
  National High Tech Crime Unit
  Communications Data: Police Requests
  Communications Data: Police Requests
  Police Forces: IT Provision
  Police Forces: IT Provision
  Entitlement Card Scheme
  Entitlement Card Scheme
  Afghan Immigrants from Sangatte
  Afghan Immigrants from Sangatte
  Asylum Seekers: Dispersal
  Asylum Seekers: Dispersal
  Asylum Seekers: Healthcare
  Asylum Seekers: Healthcare
  Iraqi Kurd Immigrants from Sangatte
  Iraqi Kurd Immigrants from Sangatte
  Magistrates' Courts
  Magistrates' Courts
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Data Protection Act 1998: Costs
  Data Protection Act 1998: Costs
  Deer Hunting
  Deer Hunting
  Harrier Jets: Norwegian Inquiry
  Harrier Jets: Norwegian Inquiry
  NHS Trusts: Clinical Governance
  NHS Trusts: Clinical Governance
  NHS: Independent Configuration Panel
  NHS: Independent Configuration Panel
  Thiomersal
  Thiomersal
  Abortions: Girls Aged 12 and Under
  Abortions: Girls Aged 12 and Under
  Asylum Seekers: Tuberculosis. Screening
  Asylum Seekers: Tuberculosis. Screening
  Fluoridation of Water
  Fluoridation of Water
  Parkinson's Disease Research
  Parkinson's Disease Research
  Classics: GCSE, AS and A-level Students
  Classics: GCSE, AS and A-level Students
  Early Years Education
  Early Years Education
  School Transport for 16–19 year-olds
  School Transport for 16–19 year-olds
  Primary School Spending
  Primary School Spending
  School Sport Co-ordinators
  School Sport Co-ordinators
  Northern Ireland: Food Safety Promotion Board
  Northern Ireland: Food Safety Promotion Board
  Northern Ireland: Vetting Procedures
  Northern Ireland: Vetting Procedures
  Ulster-Scots Agency: Interim Chief Executive
  Ulster-Scots Agency: Interim Chief Executive
  Northern Ireland Ambulance Services
  Northern Ireland Ambulance Services
  Strategic Rail Authority: Staffing
  Strategic Rail Authority: Staffing
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  London Traffic Congestion
  London Traffic Congestion
  Substandard Ships in EU Waters
  Substandard Ships in EU Waters
  Transport of Heavy Fuel in Single Hull Tankers
  Transport of Heavy Fuel in Single Hull Tankers
  Driving Disqualifications: Channel Islands and Gibraltar
  Driving Disqualifications: Channel Islands and Gibraltar
  Road Vehicle Lighting
  Road Vehicle Lighting