Sitting of 17 December 2002

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

    Traffic Congestion
    Sue Doughty: If he will make a statement on his plans for traffic and congestion reduction in England. [85901]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): This afternoon, I shall make a statement and publish a report on the Government's 10-year transport investment plan. The investment plan will bring about reductions in congestion, but continued progress will require sustained investment as well as other measures over many years.
    Sue Doughty: The Secretary of State said this morning on the radio that he seeks merely to stem the remorseless rise of congestion. Does that mean allowing it to continue to rise? If so, what has happened to the imaginative and innovative solutions that we need to reduce the growth in traffic and to reduce actual traffic and congestion by 2011?
    Mr. Darling: I have said on several occasions that it is clear to me that the levels of congestion in this country two years ago, when these targets were fixed, were far higher than people thought. It is also clear that, as a result of strong economic growth, the pressures on the system will be far higher than was anticipated. As I shall make clear later this afternoon, without the investment that we are bringing forward, congestion would rise remorselessly. That was what happened in the past, and that would be the case now were it not for our planned investment. That investment plan is designed to cut congestion and make a significant impact, but, overall, levels of congestion will be higher than we thought two years ago. I am being realistic about that, because it is the right approach to take. What is necessary, however, is to continue that investment, year on year, in road improvements, in bypasses, in junction improvements, in public transport, in buses and in rail. That is what we intend to do.
    Mr. David Clelland: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have raised on previous occasions the serious congestion on the Al western bypass, a two-lane motorway, around the Tyne and Wear conurbation, which is often easily as congested as the M6, a three-lane motorway. Will he give the House some information on what progress is being made on introducing measures to relieve congestion on that road?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a key point. If we are to tackle congestion, we need to look at its causes, and, in particular, at the places where it occurs. He will be aware that I made an announcement last week about a number of road programmes. The road mentioned by my hon. Friend is being studied by the Highways Agency and as and when we have something to say about it, I shall report it to him and to the House. The key point in relation to congestion is that we must, as a country, commit ourselves to sustained investment, year on year, decade on decade, which successive Governments have failed to do in the past.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State said last week:
    "I have enough experience as a Minister with large IT projects to be very wary of people who come along and say, "Don't worry, it'll be all right on the night." It does not quite work that way."—[Official Report, 10 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 162.]
    Does he have every confidence that, come the end of February next year, people will be satisfied with the system that will be operating in London?
    Mr. Darling: As I said, I have enough experience as a Minister dealing with IT projects for which I have responsibility to be cautious. Equally, I have enough experience to know that when other people are dealing with projects I should be even more cautious.
    Alan Simpson: Will the Secretary of State cast a second glance over the proposals to dual the A453, the final part of which runs through the Clifton section of my constituency? The point at which the delays occur on the A453 has always been that at which the road crosses the River Trent, where the bottleneck is the bridge itself, which is not to be widened. Will he consider phasing the proposals to judge whether the final part of the scheme will work, because so much is dependent on diversionary transport planning, much of which is not yet in place?
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of the problem, because a few months ago I drove down that road, and I remember the congestion point that my hon. Friend mentioned. My recollection is that the Highways Agency is considering whether there should be a further crossing over the Trent to accommodate that problem. I shall look into the matter again and write to him. He is right to raise the general issue that if one sorts out congestion at one point, one should try to sort out the congestion at the next point down the line.
    Mr. Don Foster: How will cutting rail services and increasing rail fares help to tackle road congestion?
    Mr. Darling: Over the next few years we will double the amount of money spent on the railways; from recollection, we are spending something like £12 billion on the railway system. I have made it clear on a number of occasions, as has Richard Bowker, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, that the rail industry must get a grip of the costs that it faces. The Government are willing to spend more, and investment is being made, but, as in other cases, that must be coupled with reform. First, the industry must get a grip of its major project costs, but it must also deliver better standards in relation to reliability and the quality of service offered.
    I am sure that many Members of the House will know from their own experience that too many rail companies in this country have not improved their performance. Richard Bowker and the SRA are therefore right to drive a hard bargain on behalf of the public, who expect us to make sure that money is spent prudently and to the best possible effect.
    Helen Jackson: But will my right hon. Friend not accept, as I believe he does, that the only answer to road congestion is an integrated approach that talks about long-term investment in the railways and public transport as well as in necessary road improvements? I am sure that he does not want to be called the son of Beeching, so will he assure the House that we will not have railway closures and public transport cuts? That is not the way to improve road congestion.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. As I said last week, any transport policy has to be measured and balanced. That means that we have to spend more on our railways because they are suffering from year after year and decade after decade of under-investment. We also have to make sensible improvements in our road network, which, in many cases, was designed 30 or 40 years ago and now carries levels of traffic that could not have been anticipated then.
    However, it is equally true that, if we spend more, we must make sure that we get more out of the system. I am sure that my hon. Friend cannot be the only Member of the House who becomes frustrated to find that, when we put more money into the railway system, too many companies do not make the improvements that they should make. Frankly, the reliability levels of the trains need to be improved. Poor maintenance and staffing problems are all problems that the industry needs to sort out.
    I am very clear about this. The Government are prepared to spend more on the railways—it is substantially more—but, at the same time, we are entitled to say to the industry, "You've got to get a grip of costs and you've got to get a grip of projects. Above all, you've got to provide a much better service than at present." I believe that the railway industry now understands that the Government, and through them the SRA, are extremely serious when we say to it that it has got to up its game and drive up standards.
    Mr. Tim Collins: If the Secretary of State is blaming what he calls an unexpected rise in congestion on unexpected economic growth, will he explain how a 5 per cent. growth in the number of jobs in the past five years translates into a
    676
    16 per cent. rise in average journey times, into a 33 per cent. rise in the CBI's estimate of the cost to business of congestion and into a 40 per cent. rise in average congestion levels on motorways?
    Mr. Darling: The principal cause of the rise in congestion on the roads and railways is that, for years, successive Governments failed to invest enough. Indeed, if we ask ourselves why much of the transport system in other European countries is, generally speaking, better than ours, we find that the reason is that they invested more year on year and decade after decade. The hon. Gentleman's problem—I put this to him last week—is that he does not have a policy for dealing with any of this. Until he has, he will forgive me for being a trifle sceptical of the criticism that he makes of us.
    Mr. Collins: If the answer is investment, why are the Government proposing to spend in every year of the 10-year plan less on both roads and rail than Margaret Thatcher spent in every year of her premiership? If it is all unexpected, how come that it was predicted almost to the precise percentage point in the Government's own document "National Road Traffic Forecasts (Great Britain) 1997"?
    Mr. Darling: On spending, it is a trifle disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to exclude from his figures private investment, which is also going into road and rail. It is interesting that private investment under this Government is 10 times greater now than it was under Margaret Thatcher's Government.
    Angela Eagle: She got us into this mess.
    Mr. Darling: That is as may be. However, the key point surely is that, unless all of us, including the Opposition, sign up to the proposition that we need to invest more in transport—public transport and in roads, rail and buses—the problems that face us will continue. I am clear that, as a result of the 10-year plan, we will stem the rising level of congestion that we would otherwise have faced. By investing in buses, railways, light transport and public transport overall as well as by putting more into the road system, we will steadily bear down on what is an undoubted problem. However, without the money and the commitment to investment, which the Conservatives certainly do not have, we will not crack the problem. The investment that the Government are putting forward will go a long way towards dealing with the problem. However, as I have made clear—let us face up to this—we have an awful lot more to do.

    Airport Development
    Tony Wright: What assessment he has made of the recent report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in relation to plans for airport development. [85902]
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What assessment he has made of the conclusions of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution regarding the impact of a substantial increase in air travel on global warming; and if he will make a statement. [85905]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Government will consider this report along with responses to our consultation on the development of air transport in the UK.
    Tony Wright: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the subtitle of the royal commission's report is "flying to a warmer climate"? It estimates that as much as 10 per cent. of man-made global warming will come from aviation in 50 years' time. Given that, is it not daft that travel by train gets ever more expensive while travel by air gets ever cheaper, and that we have no tax on aircraft fuel? Are we sure that it is sensible to keep increasing airport capacity to meet demand without raising questions about the nature of that demand?
    Mr. Darling: I did notice the subtitle of the report as I read it on an aeroplane, although I was returning to my constituency at the time, and so travelling to a colder climate. I also noticed that the report was not as thorough and, perhaps, in-depth as I might have liked, notwithstanding the conclusions. In particular, it did not give due credit to the fact that the Government made it clear in the consultation document that we believe that the air industry should pay for the environmental costs that it causes.
    The report also did not take account of the fact that when I announced the consultation process, a number of hon. Members asked about rail alternatives, especially in the United Kingdom. I made it clear that once the west coast main line is upgraded and we have faster and more reliable train services, we will be able to encourage people to use that railway line rather than flying from Manchester to London, which strikes me as something they would not want to do if they had a reliable railway service. However, none of that gets away from the fact that many people go to airports to fly not within the UK or to close destinations in Europe, but to other parts of the world. For that reason, we need to consider the capacity of airports, notwithstanding the report's conclusions.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the Secretary of State is trying to give full answers, but I have the difficulty of getting through the Order Paper and need his co-operation.
    Mr. Mullin: But is it not the case that there is a flat contradiction between the Secretary of State's Department's plans for an indefinite expansion of air travel and the Government's commitment to the environment? Has he consulted his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and are they happy?
    Mr. Darling: That does not happen to be the Government's policy. In the consultation, the Government asked to what extent we should meet the
    678
    likely demand for an increase in flying over the next few years. The premise on which my hon. Friend bases his question is wrong. In the interests of brevity, I shall leave it at that.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: In seeking to meet demand for air transport, will the Secretary of State take note of the very serious air pollution that already exists in and around Heathrow? Will he exclude the possibility of a third east-west runway at that airport in favour of an incremental development of the airport system in the south-east of England as a whole, which is a more cost effective option?
    Mr. Darling: It would be imprudent of me to come to a conclusion on something on which the Government are consulting. However, I am well aware of those points.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The House will be familiar with my interests in aviation and air transport. In drafting the response to the royal commission's findings, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential for increasing the role of regional airports so that our constituents can travel from Scotland and the north of England directly, using regional air services, without being affected by the obsession of having to travel over London? Is that one aspect of his airport expansion proposals on which he might see fit to take a favourable approach?
    Mr. Darling: I was not aware of the hon. Lady's interests in aviation, but as she has raised them I shall have a look. As for regional airports, as I said when I made my statement in July, many people in central Scotland, the north-east and the north-west of England would like to be able to fly to more international destinations and not have to come through a London airport. That is addressed in the consultation, and is something on which representations are sought—indeed, a number of people have made representations about it.
    John McDonnell: Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that information and recommendations from the royal commission will be included in the consultation papers on airport capacity developments that will be produced in the new year?
    Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend knows, the consultation documents refer to the environmental costs of airport expansion, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) earlier, but I cannot give an undertaking that the royal commission findings will be incorporated in a Government paper, as that would not be appropriate. It is fairly well known that the royal commission has looked at the matter and reported—I am sure that people living at or around Heathrow will be well aware of the report, and will take up the arguments that they believe to be appropriate.
    Mr. David Curry: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told the House last Thursday that she had had discussions with the right hon. Gentleman about the report on

    679
    airport policy produced by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Does he recall those discussions, and can he tell us how he has amended his policy as a result?
    Mr. Darling: On the documents, when we discussed the matter in prolonged exchanges in Question Time last month, I said that we would publish a further paper on the result of the court decision on Gatwick. The representations and general comments that we have received are publicly available and known about. Ministers will take them into account, as will the House.
    It is important that we take into account not just what people say about the need to expand airports but what they say about the environmental cost of air travel—both are important. As I have said time and time again, next year we will reach a conclusion about what we ought to do. I am pretty clear about the fact that the House, the industry and the public want certainty about our strategy, and we still plan to make that decision towards the end of next year.

    Vehicle Emissions
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What representations he has made to the road transport industry to reduce pollution from vehicles which can cause asthma; and if he will make a statement. [85903]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Ministers meet regularly with representatives from the road transport industry, and the issue of the environmental and health impacts of road transport is frequently raised. Action at both national and European level has been very successful in reducing the levels of pollutants from road transport over the past decade, and the Government continue to play an active role to ensure future improvements in this sector.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he share my view that the increase in the number of people suffering from asthma, particularly children, is unacceptable? There is now evidence that particulates from vehicles are a cause of asthma—the problem is mainly caused by the density of traffic. Is my hon. Friend aware of the important studies by the Department of Health on the medical effects of air pollution, and will he act upon that information to ensure that the communities that we represent can be free of asthma?
    Mr. Jamieson: I am aware of the report to which my hon. Friend referred—he is right to be concerned about this important matter, especially the impact on children. The latest research on the causes of asthma shows that there is no evidence that air pollution causes asthma, but there is certainly evidence that it exacerbates or may bring on attacks in people who already have asthma. We have therefore asked the Government's expert Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants to provide further advice next year.
    Mr. John Redwood: Recently, one of the main causes of increased vehicle pollution has been the mad policies of the Mayor of London—narrowing
    680
    streets, putting in chicanes, humps and bumps, and turning all the traffic lights red, which has been copied by other authorities around the country. In the interests of having cleaner air, will the Minister offer new guidance to local government to start easing the flow of traffic, rather than clobbering the motorist?
    Mr. Jamieson: The congestion charging zone will give a dispensation to cleaner vehicles, which we greatly welcome. If we get some vehicles off the road to create a flow of traffic, that will reduce congestion. Roads can be congested by people travelling one person to a car, stop-starting, and travelling at low speeds. That is the most polluting aspect of vehicle usage, and we hope that congestion charging can make some contribution to tackling it.
    Geraint Davies: Will my hon. Friend examine carefully the relationship between congestion and asthma in London, and in particular, with the implementation of congestion charging in the spring, will he look carefully at whether the levels of asthma fall as the levels of congestion fall, as we hope they will?
    Mr. Jamieson: That is a very good point. We have asked the Government's Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants to consider the matter and refer it back to us next year. My hon. Friend will know that English local authorities can apply to have air quality management areas, in which they can have designated powers to conduct random roadside checks. All those things together will make a major contribution to improving asthma levels. Some of the evidence that we have at present is inconclusive. We want to make sure that the quality of the evidence is improved, so that we can take appropriate action.

    Rail Franchise (Wales)
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When the successful bid for the all-Wales rail franchise will be announced. [85904]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The Strategic Rail Authority has asked for best and final offers to be submitted by bidders in February 2003. It expects that a preferred bidder will be announced in spring 2003.
    Mr. Llwyd: Bearing it in mind that Wales has the worst railway services in the whole of the UK in terms of frequency, punctuality and so on, what does the Minister think will be the ultimate effect of the direction from the SRA to cut the franchise bids by 20 per cent? In a rural context, common sense dictates fewer services.
    Mr. Spellar: The SRA has actually asked bidders to look at what would happen under reduced subsidy levels. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Wales received a subsidy last year of 14.3p per passenger kilometre, compared with a national average of 3.4p. The SRA is saying that companies should be looking at how they can bear down on their costs. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the train operators, Network Rail and the contractors must consider how the public—

    681
    the travelling public and the taxpaying public—are to get value for money out of the rail system. That is a proper question to ask, and one that any responsible Government would support.
    Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the advent of an all-Wales rail franchise should not diminish the importance of services into England? Does he share my profound regret that a town such as Wrexham, the capital of north Wales, still does not have a decent rail service to London, which is a constant drain on the developing industry there?
    Mr. Spellar: I fully accept my hon. Friend's point with regard to Wrexham. North Wales will benefit from the upgrade of the west coast main line, which will significantly improve journey times to north Wales. My hon. Friend will also be aware that in co-operation with the Welsh Executive, we have been looking at improving the road network in that area. I accept that there will be further problems to deal with. There have been decades of under-investment, which we cannot remedy overnight. We are, however, taking significant steps in that direction.
    Chris Grayling: The Minister knows that First Great Western recently put forward a proposal to link Wales to London by high-speed line. The Strategic Rail Authority gave that proposal a very negative response. Is it now the Government's policy that the private sector should not be involved in developing ideas for the enhancement of the rail infrastructure?
    Mr. Spellar: No, we are certainly not saying that. The SRA is clearly saying to train operators, and rightly so, that their first priority must be to ensure that the franchises that they already have run efficiently and effectively, are reliable and provide customer satisfaction. There is much work to be done in the future as regards enhancements, but the key thing is to run the system as it is in order to cater for the travelling public and for freight. Train operators should be focusing all their efforts on that. Once we have got that sorted out, they should look at future enhancements.

    Public Transport (Disabled Access)
    Mr. Tom Clarke: If he will make a statement on access to all forms of public transport for people with disabilities. [85906]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his fine record of championing the causes of disabled people.
    Regulations requiring access for disabled people, including wheelchair users, to new trains, buses and coaches have been introduced. We have also accepted the recommendations on transport made by the disability rights taskforce and recently issued the first of two consultation documents on proposals to implement them.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous reply. Will he focus in particular on access to buses to ensure that the appropriate equipment is made available and is constantly monitored? Will he also bear in mind the need for disability awareness training, especially for drivers?
    Mr. Jamieson: The Government share my right hon. Friend's commitment to providing accessible public transport and full access for disabled people. That relates especially to buses. As he probably knows, since December 2000, all new buses have had to comply with the needs of disabled people. We recognise that the matter involves not only improving trains or buses, but the training of the people who deliver the services. We have placed a duty on drivers to give appropriate assistance to disabled people from October this year. I am aware of a number of training scheme initiatives for bus drivers that will assist in improving services for disabled people.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I know that the Minister is aware that many of the essential inter-island lifeline services in my constituency are provided using Islander aircraft, which have access difficulties for people with some disabilities. Can he give my constituents some assurance that those lifeline services will be protected when the regulations take effect in 2005 and that we will not be left with a situation in which one size is supposed to fit all?
    Mr. Jamieson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are considering those matters, especially in the consultation that is taking place now and in the coming year. We want to ensure that we get it right. I can assure him that there is a total will to ensure that all public transport facilities are fully available to disabled people. We welcome and listen to the views of disabled groups, including lobbying groups, which make very important representations to us, and I will bear in mind the points that he makes.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Richard Branson gets a lot of stick from us—[Interruption.] Indeed, but I travelled on one of the spanking new voyager trains from Preston to Bristol only a few days ago and was staggered at how sophisticated they are. There is even signage in Braille in the toilets and elsewhere. Will the Minister pass on those good ideas from the voyager train, which could be picked up by other train operating companies?
    Mr. Jamieson: I am sure that the Virgin operators will read Hansard and take note of what my hon. Friend says. As he will know, the SRA has a code of practice that takes into account the needs of disabled people, especially in respect of new rolling stock and the refurbishment of existing rolling stock. I, too, have travelled on some of the new Virgin trains and I concur that they are excellent not only for disabled people, but for all passengers.

    Train Operating Companies
    Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on the most recent rail performance indicators from train operating companies. [85907]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The figures published by the Strategic Rail Authority on 12 December show that overall performance between July and September of this year was better than for the equivalent period last year. However, much more needs to be done to drive up reliability and the SRA is leading work systematically to address the problems that cause delay on the network.
    Mr. Heath: Much more certainly needs to be done, given that since the advent of this Government, delays have doubled and cancellations have increased by more than half. As it is very often not the rail operating companies that are at fault, but the track and infrastructure, will the Secretary of State answer the question that was put to him earlier, but which he failed to answer: how will interests of the travelling public be assisted by cancelling even more services, reducing maintenance and increasing fares?
    Mr. Darling: As the hon. Gentleman asked the question, let me answer it. The delays to trains are caused in a proportion of roughly half and half by problems on the track and problems in the train operating companies, which are currently responsible for about 48 per cent. of all delays. If one asks what the causes are on the part of the companies, one sees that 45 per cent. of them relate to problems with the train fleet—that is, reliability and maintenance problems.
    Some 12 per cent. relate to stations and problems in getting the trains away, and 18 per cent. relate to problems in relation to crewing. All those are management issues, so it does not necessarily follow that if we give the train operating companies more and more money, we will get a better service. As I made clear in my earlier reply, we must get a grip on costs and drive up the performance of management to get a better standard. I should have thought that all Members of the House, even Liberal Democrats, would sign up to that.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Can my right hon. Friend explain why the Strategic Rail Authority has handed vast amounts of money to Connex, which is probably one of the most reviled managements in the whole railway system, and in whose interest it was to allow those people to continue, because they manifestly are not doing any of the things that my right hon. Friend has asked them to do?
    Mr. Darling: In relation to Connex, the House and my hon. Friend will know that the decision has been taken to bring the franchise to an end earlier than would otherwise have happened. The reason that it has run forward to 2006 is, first, because that line is about to receive a lot of new rolling stock, and a new company coining in coupled with new rolling stock might have been problematic. Secondly, I came to the view—I have to authorise those things at the end of the day—that the cost of taking the Connex operation back in-house would probably have been higher than that of
    684
    continuing with Connex until we can replace the franchise in 2006. I reached that judgment after consultation with the Strategic Rail Authority, but I took the view that Connex could not continue in the way that it had for the reasons that my hon. Friend knows. However, I have to arrange an orderly transfer; a disorderly transfer would have been an absolute disaster.

    London Underground (PPP)
    Simon Hughes: If he will make a statement on progress towards the start of the public-private partnership contracts for the London underground and the transfer of assets to Transport for London. [85908]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): Commercial agreement has been reached on the public-private partnership deals, and the preferred bidders have begun to raise their finance. We expect the JNP contract to come into force at the beginning of next year, and the BCV and SSL contracts to do so in the spring.
    The Mayor of London has said that he may appeal the European Commission's decision that the notified PPP arrangements do not constitute state aid. It would be inappropriate to transfer London Underground to Transport for London during the appeal period, or pending any actual appeal, of the state aid decision. The same position applies in relation to any legal challenge in the English courts.
    Simon Hughes: Transport Ministers will have received the report from London Underground yesterday showing that the private sector costs have gone up by £300 million and the public sector costs have gone down by £200 million. Therefore, the estimate for the total project over the seven and a half years, which is the guaranteed price period, is in the same ballpark—about £9.5 billion for each. Given that the Government pledge was that the private option would save £4.5 billion and would go ahead only if it proved better value for money, are Transport Ministers big enough to admit that they will not save that money, that the private option will not prove better value for money, and now choose the other better and cheaper option?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman, in his mayoral bid, wants to postpone investment in the underground for several more years. He neglects to point out that London Underground says that this still represents value for money and that the contract is over 30 years and not seven and a half years. What the travelling public in London want is an end to the wrangling and an end to the threats of litigation after two failed court cases, at considerable cost to London travelers and ratepayers. They want the companies to get in, the investment to go in, and the tube to improve. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not support that.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is there any serious transfer of risk to the private sector with 30-year contracts without a clause enabling termination in

    685
    the public interest, and given the Government's new letters of comfort to the private sector issued only last week?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend should observe that there is the shareholder risk if companies fail to perform. The key basis of the contract is that it is driven by performance, and there will be a review at seven and a half years as well. What voters and the travelling public want is for the contract to get on and the nitpicking to stop.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: The prices in the contract are fixed for only seven and a half years. The Minister implies that the savings will continue afterwards. For the first seven and a half years, the Government subsidy will be £1 billion a year. Yet when they first made the announcement in 1999, they said that taxpayers would pay no subsidies. Will the Minister explain that?
    Mr. Spellar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that we are investing £1 billion a year in London Underground, which needs the money. As I said earlier, the contract represents value for money even with the adjustments that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned. London Underground have been negotiating exactly that, and the contract would have been in place much sooner had not Transport for London brought two abortive legal cases. Without those, we would already be experiencing the benefits. The sooner that happens, the better. I hope that it will happen fairly early in the new year. I also hope that Conservative Members share that aspiration.

    Bus Services
    Vernon Coaker: What steps he is taking to support improvements to local bus services. [85909]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The Government's 10-year transport plan and the Transport Act 2000 are the key elements that we have put in place for achieving improvements in bus services. We are now taking forward several other initiatives to ensure that the objective is achieved. For example, we have established the bus partnership forum, and we are currently reviewing value for money from existing bus subsidies.
    Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend consider what we can do with local bus companies such as Nottingham City Transport, which has cut some of its unprofitable routes, especially to outlying estates, thus often isolating those communities? Will he ascertain whether we can increase urban bus grants in the same way as we provided rural bus grants to try to ensure that isolated estates retain the bus services on which they depend?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend knows about urban bus challenge. Indeed, Nottingham city council succeeded in its bid for funding in the 2002 urban bus challenge
    686
    competition for the Sherwood-Matterley feeder link. That will benefit a part of my hon. Friend's constituency.
    My hon. Friend draws attention to an important problem that occurs especially on the edge of urban areas in outlying estates where a decline in patronage causes difficulty with the sustainability of services. In some cases, the appropriate response is a subsidy from the local passenger transport executive. In others, we should consider whether we need continuing fixed routes or more demand-led transport systems. Authorities are examining those matters. I am more than happy to consider the issues that my hon. Friend raised. They are not confined to his constituency, and they are a cause for concern.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: The 10-year transport plan foresees an increase of 10 per cent. in bus journeys by 2010. That includes an expected 50 per cent. increase in such journeys in London. The inescapable mathematical consequence is that rural bus travel will continue to decline. Is the Minister resigned to that?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman should observe not only increasing car ownership but the increase in the number of driving licence holders, notably women, from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of the population. That has an impact on demand in rural areas. He is right that we will hit the 10 per cent. target. Even on the current figures, which we hope to improve, there was a 1 per cent. increase last year. Given his constituency, he will be well aware of increasing car ownership and usage in rural areas, and the consequent need for us to consider more demand-responsive services rather than the traditional bus routes, which are under much pressure through changing patterns of demand.
    Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of the problems are caused by the Conservative Government's decision in the 1980s to deregulate bus services outside London? The extra money that the Government are laudably investing in bus transport is being eaten up by the profits of large companies, which do not increase coverage but place even more pressure on passenger transport authorities for more subsidies. Will he consider reregulating bus services outside London to solve the problem?
    Mr. Spellar: There is a variable picture across the country. In some areas, local authorities and the bus companies are working extremely well together to the benefit of the travelling public, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right—that picture is not universal, which is why we set up the bus partnership forum. I had the local authorities coming in with a litany of complaints about the bus companies. Equally, the bus companies were coming in with complaints about the local authorities, so we have got them together round the table. We have set up time-limited working parties to iron out a lot of those difficulties and to enable the companies and local authorities to come together and start spreading best practice across the country. We are starting to see some outcomes, but there is still a long way to go to achieve the service that her constituents deserve.

    West Coast Main Line
    Tony Cunningham: When he expects improvements in journey times on the west coast main line to be achieved. [85910]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The Strategic Rail Authority's draft strategy for the west coast route modernisation project envisages that journey times will be reduced substantially by winter 2004. Journey times will be further reduced by 2006, when the vast majority of the upgrade will be complete.
    Tony Cunningham: While I welcome that, we all know that the only real improvement in journey times will come with new trains and track improvements. We will get the new pendolino trains, which are to run from London to Manchester and from London to Birmingham. Much, much later, they will run further north. We will also get west coast main line upgrades as far as Crewe, and perhaps further north later on. When the Minister is in discussions with Network Rail, the SRA and Virgin, will he remind them that there are people who live north of Preston? My constituents have to travel by train because the nearest airport is more than 100 miles away.
    Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for that. He is aware that the west coast main line serves people well beyond Preston. In fact, some in Scotland might think that they have an interest in it as well. In the thrust of his question, he rightly underlined the west coast main line's strategic importance and rightly said that new rolling stock, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), has been introduced to the line. However, as my hon. Friend also pointed out, we will not be able to provide that service unless the track is complete and up to standard. We are now convinced that Network Rail has a grip on the issue and a realistic timetable for improvements. We want that to be delivered so that the line is fully operational by 2006.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Following on from that, does my hon. Friend agree that the reality is that, although the SRA has put a plan out to consultation, there are great worries that the money and the resources will not be there due to the speculation over the weekend? Can he confirm that the moneys will be there?
    Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend knows that a huge investment is being made in that line—a total of £10 billion. He refers to stories that were in the newspapers over the weekend. Those who have been invited to bid for the new franchises have been asked what they can provide at a lower rate of public subsidy. They have also been asked what they can provide at the same and at a greater rate. Unfortunately, the only story we saw in the newspapers was about cutting those subsidies.

    Transport Links (Eastern Region)
    Barbara Follett: What plans his Department has to improve east-west transport links in the eastern region. [85911]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): East-west transport links in the east of England are being investigated by the London to south midlands multi-modal study, which is nearing completion. The final report will be published early in the new year. We will consider the regional planning body's recommendations on the study and make a further announcement on how they will be implemented in due course.
    Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the £145 million that the eastern region received in last week's local transport settlement, but is he aware that none of that money went towards improving east-west transport links? Will he bear that in mind in making future allocations, particularly as there is an urgent need for those links to bring employment to the Suffolk coastal towns?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is aware that we are considering not just the immediate area in London and the south midlands, but the area surrounding Ipswich, not least because of the connections out to the east coast ports. We need to wait for the outcome of the multi-modal study and, of course, the views of the regional planning body. I will certainly take account of her views when we come to that consideration and hope also that she will make representations at that time.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Minister confirm that he has no intention of allowing, let alone financing, the railway and motorway from Luton to Stevenage, which the Luton airport operators have said would be necessary if their expansion plans were approved and which would destroy the environment in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett)? It would probably end in her back garden. Will he also confirm that the real way to stop unnecessary cross-county transport and travel is to focus airport growth in a minimum of hub airports rather than unnecessarily expanding airports such as Luton?
    Mr. Spellar: The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to prejudge not one consultation, but two. I need to await the outcome of both consultations before I can come to a view.

  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Tom Harris: What work is being undertaken by his Department to encourage younger people to seek a public appointment. [85936]
    Jeff Ennis: What progress has been made by his Department in increasing the number of disabled people seeking public appointments. [85941]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government are committed to increasing diversity in public appointments and value

    689
    the contribution that young people and disabled people can make. That is why we are taking a range of initiatives, from citizenship education in secondary schools to encouraging departments to publicise public appointments in journals such as Disability Now and Disability Times.
    Mr. Harris: Given the subject matter of this question, it is appropriate that my hon. Friend is answering it. Does he agree that far too few young people express an interest in public service? Is not there a danger that, unless we can convince younger people that their opinions and experience are valued, their disengagement with the political process will only accelerate?
    Mr. Alexander: I agree with my hon. Friend. Engaging young people in the political process is a challenge not only for the Government, but for all political parties. One of the particular challenges that we face is that only 10 to 15 per cent. of public appointments come up every year. We have made some progress on that, but we can make further progress, especially with regard to young people.
    Jeff Ennis: Has the Minister's Department liaised with disability organisations on this important issue? What can it do to speed up the process so that at long last public bodies are truly representative of society?
    Mr. Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Cabinet Office and the equality unit have held discussions on these specific areas. We are keen to increase the number of adverts placed in journals that address the needs of particular communities, including the disabled.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: I commend to my hon. Friend the work of A National Voice, which is the national organisation for young people in care. It explodes many of the myths about young people in care. Will he assure me that such organisations will be fully involved in the work to develop and improve the care system and on the Green Paper on services for children at risk?
    Mr. Alexander: I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's observations on the care system, and I will ensure that my colleagues in government are fully appraised of the work of the organisation of which he speaks.

    Open Source Software
    Mr. Richard Allan: What progress he has made in implementing his Department's policy for open source software. [85937]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): We have jointly established a group to raise awareness of the policy and to build expertise in software procurement. The Cabinet Office effectively promotes and is active in its deployment of the open source software policy.
    690
    Some recent examples of public sector usage of OSS include the Department of Trade's Small Business Service, the Meteorological Office and West Yorkshire police. Those organisations are either using or piloting open source software for their operational use.
    Mr. Allan: The Minister deserves credit for his open source policy. Will he confirm that it will apply in full to the national health service, which is a major purchaser of IT services and could benefit from acquiring the rights to bespoke software and deploying it openly among the developer community? Has he been able to reach agreement on his policy of using open source software as the default exploitation route for Government-funded research and development software?
    Mr. Alexander: I welcome the hon. Gentleman, who is now dealing with these issues, to his new position on the Front Bench. I shall make a couple of general observations and then address the specific question of the health service. We always maintain an interest in best value for money solutions, be they OSS or other types of software. We are also determined to remove reliance on individual IT suppliers, and the Office of Government Commerce is taking forward a range of work in this area. The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to know that I discussed IT matters with the Secretary of State for Health this morning.
    Brian White: One perception about open source software is that it is less secure than proprietary software, but that is not true. What steps is the Minister taking to promote the security of IT systems across government, particularly those using OSS?
    Mr. Alexander: I know of the expertise of my hon. Friend in this area, and it goes without saying that the security of Government systems is vital. We are taking active steps on a monthly and ongoing basis to keep appraised of the latest IT security challenges that we face. Properly configured open source software can be at least as secure as proprietary systems; in fact, at the moment OSS is subject to fewer attacks than are alternative forms of software. However, this is an area of ongoing work for the Government.
    Mr. John Redwood: Has the Minister examined the use of open source software to solve a very big Government problem: their inability to answer letters in anything less than two or three months? Would it not be a good idea to examine how to get much better standards of performance in serving us and our constituents?
    Mr. Alexander: One of the challenges relating to software systems is the legacy issue, and one such legacy that we encountered after 1997 was the slowness of Departments in responding to letters. Work is now being undertaken by each Whitehall Department to ensure that letters are responded to at an appropriate time.

    Civil Service (Recruitment)
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: What steps he is taking to ensure equality of opportunity in recruitment to the civil service. [85938]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government remain strongly committed to equality of opportunity, and to creating a civil service that is fully representative of the community that it serves. Government Departments have delegated responsibility for most recruitment, but they have set themselves challenging diversity targets.
    Mr. Bailey: I thank the Minister for his reply. What advice can he give to young unemployed members of the ethnic minority community in my constituency on how best to improve their chances of being recruited to the civil service, both regionally and nationally?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A range of community organisations is receiving direct sponsorship to encourage under-represented groups to apply for work in the civil service. One example that may be of interest to him is Black Britain—it can be found at blackbritain.co.uk—an online business that provides black communities with information on jobs across Departments in Whitehall.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Does the Minister agree that, in talking about equality in this context, he should be equally concerned with quality? If he cannot explain today what a "representative" civil service actually means, can he give us an absolute assurance that, when it comes to recruitment to the civil service, merit will always come above all else?
    Mr. Alexander: I would hope that that is not a contentious point on the Floor of the House, but it could be so for those Opposition Members who have no interest in building up the public sector and the civil service in particular. We maintain our ambition of merit and equality of access to the civil service, and we see no contradiction between drawing talent from the widest possible pool across the country, and ensuring excellence in the public realm in the United Kingdom.
    Angela Eagle: It is interesting to note that the Opposition seem to think that there is such a
    692
    contradiction. I congratulate the Government on the work that they are doing in this area, but I ask my hon. Friend to recommit his Department to driving forward equal opportunities in respect of gender, ethnic minorities and disability—across the whole piece—in order to make the civil service more representative of the people that it serves.
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend makes some vital points. Of course, within the civil service there are targets not just for women and for ethnic minorities, but for disabled citizens; however, along with those targets we have also taken forward streams of work that are attracting non-traditional entrants. As the work of the civil service in relation to the new deal and modern apprenticeships shows, many new routes of access are now available to people who perhaps had not previously considered serving the public interest in the civil service.

    Civil Emergency Contingency Planning
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the organisation of civil emergency contingency planning. [85940]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Within the Cabinet Office, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, has ministerial responsibility for civil emergency contingency planning. He is in regular contact with ministerial colleagues on civil contingency issues, both within formal committee meetings and on an ad hoc basis.
    Miss McIntosh: As the Minister will be aware, the emergency planning college is situated at the Hawkhills campus near Easingwold in my constituency. Who is responsible for delivering contingency planning? What should Members of Parliament do in the event of a terrorist attack on the House?
    Mr. Alexander: My noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston recently visited that college, and heard about the important work being taken forward there. I pay tribute to that work today. The Minister responsible for the protection and safety of UK citizens is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He is in charge of three Cabinet Sub-Committees, and he co-ordinates the work of Government not just in one locality but across the country.

Occupational and Private Pensions
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government Green Paper entitled "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement".
Decisions on pensions are some of the most important of our lives. Since coming to office in 1997, this Government have faced three specific challenges on pensions—of affordability, pensioner poverty and expectations. Rising longevity poses important challenges for the affordability of pensions systems right across the developed world. The old age dependency ratio is expected to more than double in the EU, with even greater increases in other developed economies such as Japan.
It is good news that people live longer, but if people want their standards of living to continue to rise in retirement, they must either save more or work longer, or a mixture of both. The UK is in a stronger position to meet this demographic challenge than most other developed countries, not only because our dependency ratio is expected to increase by half as much as the European average, but because of the choices that the Government have made over the past five years to ensure that the UK pensions system remains affordable.
We rejected demands to link the basic state pension to earnings, because that short-term solution would not have been sustainable over the long term. Instead, because of our targeted approach, projections show that public spending on pensions in this country will remain stable over the next 50 years at around 5 per cent. of gross domestic product. In contrast, EU forecasts show that other European countries such as Germany and Spain will require increases of between 40 per cent. and 80 per cent. in public spending on pensions over the next 50 years in order to meet their pension liabilities.
That same targeted approach has enabled us to meet the second challenge, of pensioner poverty. Since 1997, we have strengthened the foundation of basic state support through the introduction of the minimum income guarantee and, from next October, the pension credit. As a result, next year the poorest third of pensioners will be on average £1,500 a year better off.
I can tell the House that the Government continue to reject calls from the pensions industry and others that all targeted support for pensioners should be scrapped and instead added to the basic state pension. Such a move would mean an increase in the maximum basic entitlement of £10 a week for some pensioners, but at the expense of a cut of £17 a week for the poorest pensioners. That would amount to taking resources from the poorest pensioners and redistributing them to the richest, and it is not our way.
Over the past five years, as we have taken action to tackle pensioner poverty, the pension contributions of people on higher incomes have risen by 40 per cent., increasing the incomes that they can expect in retirement. The challenge facing society today, therefore, has to do with the expectations of middle-income earners—people who expect continuing rising standards of living in retirement, but who to achieve that will either have to save more or work longer, or both.
694
Evidence shows that perhaps 3 million such people are currently not saving enough for their retirement, and others may not be saving enough to provide the pensions that they want. At the same time, occupational schemes have come under pressure from rising costs and increasing complexity. Some employers are closing schemes or cutting the amount of contributions, and many people are leaving the work force earlier.
There is a choice to be made on how we meet these challenges. Some believe that a radical strengthening of the voluntarist approach to pension provision can never be made to work and that the United Kingdom should move beyond it, for example, adopting further compulsory pension contributions. We believe that the partnership between Government, individuals, employers and the financial services industry has long been a strength of the pensions system in the United Kingdom, and that the proposals we are setting out today will renew that partnership and reaffirm the responsibilities of each member.
Our proposals show how, if all partners play their part, the voluntarist approach can work to maximum effect. The test will be whether, with this radical strengthening of our approach, employers and employees can rise to the challenge voluntarily, or whether we will need to introduce more compulsion. In a voluntarist system, over and above the level of support provided by the state, individuals are best placed to judge their own long-term savings needs and aspirations for retirement; but the success of that approach rests on the information and understanding that people have, and the clarity of the options open to them. The approach will fail if the complexity of products and the cost of financial advice deter people from saving.
Since 1997 we have taken action to rebuild trust in the financial services industry, to clear up pensions mis-selling—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—for which Opposition Members ought to apologise—and to introduce new savings products such as individual savings accounts and stakeholder pensions, opening up new opportunities for people to save. For too many people, however, pensions planning—as we all know—has remained an incomprehensible maze.
As I told the House in July,
"Pensions simplification has to be at the heart of any strategy to encourage greater pension provision".—[Official Report, 11 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 1053.]
Nowhere is that truer than in taxation of pensions, which has grown complex enough to challenge even the experts. There are currently no fewer than eight sets of tax rules governing pensions—each with its own annual limits on contributions and benefits—imposing unnecessary inflexibility, driving up costs and, worst of all, discouraging people from saving.
Today I can announce a radical simplification of the rules. We propose to sweep away the eight existing pensions tax regimes with their associated limits on annual contributions and benefits. We propose to replace them with a single lifetime limit assessed at the point of retirement, and we propose to set that limit at £1.4 million. The lifetime limit will be complemented by a light-touch compliance regime based on an annual

695
limit of £200,000. That limit will not affect the majority of people. Further details are contained in an Inland Revenue consultation document published today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As my right hon. Friend announced in the pre-Budget report, the tax-free lump sum will remain, as will existing tax reliefs for pension contributions by employees, the self-employed and employers.
These proposals will help people to make clear, confident decisions. They will encourage more saving, and enable more people to build up a bigger tax-free lump sum. They mean far greater individual choice and flexibility in terms of when and how much to save for a pension. Over 99 per cent. of the population will be able to save more, with tax incentives, than is possible under current rules. The proposals will also reduce administrative burdens on employers and pension providers alike. Taken with the other measures that I am announcing today, they could save employers between £150 million and £200 million a year in pensions administration.
We will match this radical simplification of pensions taxation by breaking down other barriers to pension saving. We will provide individuals with more information about their own circumstances, and our proposals will increase the availability of state pension forecasts and extend the coverage of combined state and occupational pension forecasts. We will promote total benefit statements in the workplace, and highlight the additional value that tax relief contributes to saving in a pension.
To broaden access to advice, we will work with the financial services industry to develop mass-market financial advice in high street banks, and will consult on options for a possible requirement on employers who do not provide pensions to provide financial advice free of charge through the workplace. I can confirm to the House that we will implement the recommendations of the Sandier report to make it easier to save through simpler products, dramatically stripping out regulation and sales costs.
We also propose to offer the self-employed the right to opt in to the state second pension. I can also announce that we will increase product choice and flexibility in the annuities market by consulting on proposals to allow limited-period and value-protected annuities.
The proposals that we are setting out today will also reaffirm the role and responsibilities of employers in the pension partnership. Many employers recognise the important benefits to recruitment, retention and staff motivation that good pension provision brings. But, elsewhere, some employers have been reducing their financial commitment and contribution to workplace pensions, causing anxiety and damaging confidence in pension provision. There is a difficult balance to strike, here. We want to increase member protection without imposing burdens on employers.
I can announce today that we propose to create a new proactive pensions regulator, to focus on schemes where there is a high risk of fraud, bad governance or maladministration. We are also setting out proposals for a fairer sharing of assets when schemes close,
696
with more priority for workers closer to retirement or those with more years of contributions. We propose stronger protection for members where employers wind up schemes, and the capping of provisions to prevent executives abandoning ship and taking the lifeboat with them. We recognise, as good employers already do, the vital interest that employees have in their pension arrangements, so we propose requiring employee consultation before schemes are changed.
We can only expect to enhance protection for employees if we make it simpler and easier for employers to run schemes. Following Alan Pickering's report, we propose radically to reduce the regulatory burden on occupational schemes by simplifying the contracting out rules, including reforming the reference scheme test and ending restrictions on how and at what age contracted-out rights can be drawn. We will also replace the minimum funding requirement with scheme-specific funding requirements, saving companies £80 million a year. We will also consider allowing employers to make membership a condition of employment. I can also announce our aim to consolidate all pensions legislation into a single pensions Act.
These radical reforms mean big cuts in the administrative burdens on employers and schemes. We will also work with a new employer-led taskforce, including trade union membership, to identify and promote good practice.
Enabling people to work a few years longer can make a huge difference to retirement income. The 1980s and early 1990s saw the employment rate for older male workers decline. That trend has been reversed, with 900,000 more people over 50 now in jobs than in 1997. However, we must go further, by doing away with inflexible and outdated approaches to retirement. Our proposals will allow people to choose to work for longer if they want to do so.
We propose to promote flexibility in retirement by building on the success of the new deal 50-plus; legislating against age discrimination; ending compulsory retirement ages; and raising the normal pension age for most groups in the public services to 65 for all new entrants. To smooth the cliff edge between work and retirement, we propose to allow people to carry on working while drawing an occupational pension; and to improve the incentives for those who want to work past state pension age, we will bring forward increases to the extra state pension that people get by deferring. That means that a single pensioner who has accumulated £100 a week state pension and second pension entitlement could choose to take their pension at 70 and get £ 150 a week instead.
We are also consulting on the chance for those who defer to take a lump sum instead of the enhanced pension. For a single pensioner, that would be a one-off payment of £20,000 on top of their normal pension, or £30,000 for a couple.
I have one further announcement to make about the state pension age. We have received representations for a significant change, with persuasive arguments to move to a higher state pension age, releasing resources for use elsewhere in the pensions system. I have carefully considered that option, but have concluded that it would disproportionately impact on the poorest workers—those most dependent on the state pension, many of whom have had hard working lives.

697
As well as being forced to work for longer, those people would, because of lower life expectancy, see a bigger than average slice of their retirement taken away. I have therefore decided that we should not raise the state pension age. Our measures to give people far greater choice about flexible retirement are the right way to address the issue—not raising the state pension age.
The proposals that we are setting out today seek to renew the pensions partnership in the UK. They show how, with all partners playing their part, the voluntarist approach can be made to work to maximum effect. As I have said, some people believe that the voluntarist approach to pension provision can never be made to work, and that the UK should adopt a system of compulsory pension contributions.
There is a choice. The case for compulsion has not yet been made, but because of the magnitude of such a decision and the need to help to build a wider consensus on the way forward, I am today establishing an independent pensions commission, reporting to me as Secretary of State on whether the current voluntary system is sufficient to ensure that employers and employees rise to the challenge. I can tell the House that Adair Turner, former director general of the CBI, has accepted my invitation to chair that commission. It will report to me regularly on whether there is a case for moving beyond voluntarism.
The time has come for all the partners in the pensions system—the Government, employers, employees and financial services—to rise to the pensions challenge, and I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. David Willetts: May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for his statement? It was due in the autumn and it comes not a moment too soon. What is at stake is nothing less than the prospects for a decent retirement for millions of our fellow citizens.
This time, the Government must get their pensions policy right. They have tried many times before. Can the Secretary of State tell the House how many consultation documents on pensions the Government have produced since 1997? When I tabled a question about how many documents there had been, the Department replied that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. That is not a good sign—on my reckoning there are at least 38. In fact, I have some of the previous consultation documents here, and, as they have poured out of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, the crisis in our funded pensions has got steadily worse.
Does the Secretary of State recognise how serious the problem is? Does he realise that the speed at which pension funds are closing to new members has doubled in the past year? Does he know that more than half Britain's leading companies have now closed their pension schemes to new members? Does he know that the number of people who are retiring with an occupational pension is going down and that the number of pensioners claiming means-tested benefits is going up?
Not all the causes are under the Government's control, but that makes it all the more important that Governments get right the things that they do control. Instead, we have had the Chancellor's notorious £5 billion a year grab on our pension funds; another
698
£1.5 billion a year taken from our pensions because contracted-out rebates are too low; and nine out of 10 stakeholder pensions with not a penny in them.
So why did not the Secretary of State come to the House of Commons this afternoon and apologise on behalf of the Government for turning what was one of our great post-war successes into an economic and social disaster? There was no recognition of the scale of the crisis, and there was certainly no strategy for getting out of it. Because they have not got a solution, they pretend there is no problem.
The Secretary of State did not even repeat the Government's original objective, published in a previous pensions Green Paper, to increase from 40 to 60 per cent. the proportion of pensioners' incomes that comes from funded savings. Are they doing so badly that they have given that up altogether? Will he offer any estimate of the increase in pension savings that he expects as a result of today's announcement?
I warn the Secretary of State that he appears to base his arguments on the assumption that flows of savings into our pension funds have grown by 40 per cent. since 1997. He has already had to write me one letter of apology for producing incorrect statistics on the size of our pension flow, and I warn him that he might have to write a second one if he uses such statistics.
We will look carefully at the Secretary of State's proposals in the days and weeks ahead, but there seem to be too many old ideas rehashed and relaunched. Of course we want flexible retirement, but what the Secretary of State has announced—or rather reannounced—today has been announced by the Government five times already. In fact, it was in the original pensions Green Paper, published in December 1998. We do not need more consultation; we need action.
Yes, we need to offer more protection to employees who have been working for a company for years and find their hopes for a decent pension dashed. In fact, the Government had a consultation document on that as well—"Security for Occupational Pensions". It is more than two years old and nothing has been done. Meanwhile, the workers at Maersk and ASW, as well as those in dozens of other schemes that have wound up, have paid the price.
We agree with the Secretary of State that it would be better to offer people more flexibility in taking the state pension, but, again, his proposals are not new. Will he confirm that Parliament passed legislation to make such changes in 1995, in our Pensions Act? That was when the Labour party was arguing for a pension age of 63, by the way. Of course we understand the need for consensus and stability to encourage long-term saving, and we will support his measures where we can, but it is no use pretending that what he has announced today will somehow reverse our pension crisis. It is too little, too late.
We believe that the burden of regulation and red tape on pensions is too great. That is why we supported Alan Pickering's inquiry, but it is typical of the Government that they produced another 251 pages of regulation even after they had introduced the deregulation review. Can the Secretary of State tell us more about the basis on which the new simplified tax regime will be constructed? He has referred to the eight tax regimes that already exist, but it appears as though he is adding a ninth to

699
apply in future alongside the eight that will continue to apply in respect of previous contributions. So will he confirm whether he will be keeping the 1,300 pages of tax regulations for contributions already made and adding another tax regime on top?
Does the Secretary of State accept that we need better incentives for people to save for their pension instead of cutting back on the incentives that already exist in the tax system? Will there be losers in the proposals that he has put forward today? If so, how many will there be, and how much will they lose? Can he give a cast-iron assurance that the Chancellor is not using the simplification exercise as an excuse for another stealth tax?
The other day, the Secretary of State said that he was not offering a quick fix. I agree with him on that. His proposals are certainly not quick and they will not fix the problem either. The truth is that British pensions are in deep crisis. Millions of our fellow citizens face an impoverished retirement. All that has happened while the Government have been consulting and reviewing. At the end of that process, British pensions are in a far worse state than they were before it started.
The Secretary of State could have come to the House and admitted that the old approach was not working and that a radically new one was needed. We need new flexible ways of saving that match the way people live their lives today. We need a far simpler benefits regime for pensioners and we need to reverse the spread of means-tested benefits. Why will the Secretary of State not recognise that problem and do something about it? Without that, there is a gaping hole at the heart of his pensions proposals. He would have had support in all parts of the House for a bold reform, but he missed that opportunity. Instead, he offered us more of the same.
Today's statement simply fails to match the scale of the crisis in the savings of our country. Governments should encourage people to save, but, under this Government, savings are penalised as they never have been before. Pension funds which only five years ago seemed solid and prosperous are now insecure and under threat. After today, and after this missed opportunity, millions of people will face a new era of financial insecurity, knowing that this Government, their mistakes and their wasted opportunities are to blame. Will the Secretary of State start his response today by apologising to the millions of people whose pensions have lost value as a result of the Government's policies?
Mr. Smith: What was abundantly clear from that statement is that there is a gaping hole where any alternative policies from the Opposition ought to be. It was very clear that, even in the time that the hon. Gentleman had to study our Green Paper and my statement, he had not grasped the sweep and radicalism of our tax simplification. It does not add a ninth tax regime—that is the sort of thing that the Tories used to do. It scraps the eight and brings in a new simple regime that will encourage and promote saving where the Conservatives—as well as presiding over pension mis-selling—erected, often with the very best of intentions, walls of complexity around pensions and long-term saving, which serve this country very badly.
700
The Conservatives should support not only the simplification of taxation but the stunning reforms that we are carrying through on contracting out the reference scheme test and the guaranteed minimum pension. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is nodding—he at least realises the radicalism of what we are doing.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) spoke about the ending of the tax credit and taking £5 billion out of pension funds. But the country will know that the Conservatives' attack is worthless and that they are shedding crocodile tears, as there is no commitment on their part to reversing that position. If it is doing such damage, why has the shadow Chancellor not pledged that his party will reverse it?
The hon. Gentleman, as he has done before, referred to what he called means-tested benefits. As we all know, that is Conservative code for abolishing the pension credit, the measure that we are introducing and which, from next October will reward—as opposed to the Conservative party in government who penalised—those with modest occupational pensions and savings. The Opposition are proposing to take an average £8 a week off half the pensioner households in the country. They should support our proposals.
I welcome one thing—it is important—that the hon. Gentleman said, namely, that on the simplification proposals where we can build consensus, we will. There is a particular responsibility on pensions Ministers and spokespeople of all parties to endeavour to establish the broadest possible consensus on this issue so that we can together build the foundations for long-term saving and security for older people. I am pleased to see that some Conservative Back Benchers are nodding, even if those on the Front Bench are not.
The other parts of the hon. Gentleman's remarks were muddled, damaging and would hit the poorest hardest. That is not compassionate conservatism but the same old Tory Front-Bench view, which is more extreme than ever.
Mr. Steve Webb: If there were an offence of mis-selling Government pension policies, the Secretary of State should be bang to rights this afternoon. It sounded like an Arthur Daley scheme. He says that he will reward pensioners who defer their state pension by five years and go without their £4,000 a year state pension for that time, but what will they get in the end? Only £20,000. Well, that is a great incentive. The Secretary of State has failed to address the tough choices that needed to be addressed. A company such as BAE Systems, which is a large employer, projects a £1 billion deficit in its scheme in three years' time. There was nothing in the statement that was up to the scale of that problem. Is there anything that would match a £1 billion deficit in one scheme?
What about the position of women? I am pleased that, finally, there is a chapter about women in the document. We have put women's pensions back on the political agenda, but I have read that chapter and it is empty. It has nothing for the women who feel cheated by their pension provision. In the past two days, more than 150 women have written to me describing their anger at their pension position. What have the Government got that is concrete for women other than more information? What will they deliver for the needs of women?

701
What about the hope that people will save more? The Government have ducked the tough choice. They have set up a commission to consider the matter, but presumably it will have to wait until the issue has had years to run and then it might recommend compulsion. That would take years more, so it could be 10 years before we make sure that people save. Hoping that people will save has failed. We need to make sure that Government, employees and employers all put money into pension schemes for people on middle and higher earnings. If we do not do that, another decade will be wasted.
The Secretary of State rightly talks about consensus, but that implies that all sides are willing to move. Sitting next to him is a Chancellor who is so wedded to mass means-testing that he is in a minority of one. If the Government will not give ground on mass means-testing, what scope is there for consensus? We have heard about a task force, a commission and a proactive regulator, but we have not had the tough choices for a crisis. This is a missed opportunity.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman talks about mass means-testing. However, the truth is that, with the pension credit, we are rewarding people on modest occupational and savings incomes. Like the Tories, he would obviously take us back to pound-for-pound withdrawal, which penalises those on the lowest incomes.It is difficult to take seriously proposals on public spending from a party that, since the general election alone, has made 80 promises for extra public expenditure.
The hon. Gentleman attempted to deride the opportunity for people who defer taking their pension to receive a £20,000 or £30,000 lump sum. The matter is out for consultation, so, if he thinks that the sums are wrong or that the figures should be actuarially adjusted, he can make recommendations to that affect. However, does he not realise the radical potential of allowing people who have never before in their lives had access to that sort of money to have access to the sort of lump sums that people on much higher incomes in much more generous schemes can have? Why not give those people that choice, which has hitherto been confined to the rich?
I acknowledge the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman addresses the needs of women in the pension system. He is right to raise that issue. As he says, we have dedicated a chapter in the Green Paper to it. He asks what we are doing for women pensioners. Does he not realise that the majority of the beneficiaries of the very minimum income guarantee and pension credit that he attacks are women? Does he not realise that in introducing the state second pension, the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries will be women, including carers and those with broken work records? It is difficult to take the hon. Gentleman's criticisms seriously when he does not recognise the huge steps forward that our policies have represented for women and other pensioners.
Mr. Frank Field: May I welcome unreservedly the Secretary of State's statement on simplification, especially the move towards a fairer winding-up system, and on getting those with annuities a better deal? Does he accept, however, that his
702
statement will be viewed as the last throw in making the voluntary system work? As the voluntary system is failing to give a growing proportion of pensioners a minimum adequate pension, does his Green Paper list the criteria by which we will judge the success or otherwise of his strategy? Can we expect to see success, or failure, this side of the election?
Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for welcoming the simplification of the provisions on winding-up, the greater security that we are extending to people and the improvements to the annuities regime. Like other hon. Members, I respect his expertise and long-standing interest in such matters. Indeed, the idea that we could give an option on wind-up to pensioners based on the length of their time in a pension scheme is something that he proposed, as we acknowledge in the Green Paper.
My right hon. Friend says that our proposal might be seen as a last throw for the voluntary system. Let me make it clear, as I did in my statement, that by strengthening the voluntary system through introducing measures to simplify the regime, by enhancing protection for scheme members and pensioners through the radical reform of taxation, and by cutting costs on pension schemes and employers, we hold out the prospect of delivering our promise and renewing and refreshing the partnership on pensions.
We are equally clear in the Green Paper, however, that that has to be reviewed. My right hon. Friend asks about the criteria for that. They must include the trends in pension provision and long-term saving. The review must be based on an assessment of whether each partner to the pensions partnership meets its responsibilities. That has to be part of the test. It is why we need a regular review and why Adair Turner, who leads the commission, will report regularly to me. If the evidence shows that we need to move beyond the voluntary system—for example, by additional compulsion—we have a duty to make that clear to the country.
Mr. Peter Lilley: The Secretary of State will know that I welcomed the Government's commitment to increase by up to 60 per cent. the share of pensions liabilities which will be met by funded private pensions. Since then, however, the crisis in private pension schemes, aggravated by the pensions tax and the disincentive effects of increasing means-testing, has moved us in the opposite direction. Although I welcome some small measures announced in the statement, nothing in it is commensurate with the scale of the challenge or the crisis facing private pensions. Is he still committed to that 60 per cent. target?
Mr. Smith: That indeed remains our objective. It is why the Green Paper sets out all those proposals for radical simplification. There is a sweep and a stunning simplicity to what we propose, not only on tax, but on the reforms on contracting out the reference scheme test and the rest of it. Coupled with stronger protection for scheme members, that is the way to renew confidence in private pension provision. Of course, I share the right hon. Gentleman's goal of providing a higher proportion through the private sector. With our proposals, we can renew confidence so that we move in that direction.
Mr. Terry Rooney: My right hon. Friend should be wary of building consensus with

703
people responsible both for raiding SERPS and for the personal pensions mis-selling scandal. Does he agree that over the years all Governments have deceived people about the real cost of providing a decent pension? In the light of that, does he think that a lifetime tax-free limit of £1.4 million, equivalent to £35,000 a year in someone's working life, is the right way to use tax rebates from the Government?
Mr. Smith: I hear what my hon. Friend has said about consensus, but I genuinely believe that there must be durability in pension regimes and confidence in pensions that should transcend individual Parliaments and, indeed, individual Governments. We are all responsible for trying to make this work in the best interests of the country and future generations of pensioners—I know that my hon. Friend will want to do so. As for the £1.4 million limit, all that we have done is translate into a lifetime limit the current maximum entitlement on tax relief. That is the right thing to do so as not to disappoint people who have planned their retirement on their expectations of the existing system.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: There is much that the House will welcome in the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon, and much that will repay careful study. However, there will be disappointment about some of the longer-term aspects of what he said. Is the independent pensions commission, to be chaired by Adair Turner, to be limited merely, if I can put it that way, to the question of voluntarism versus compulsion, or is the Secretary of State prepared to expand its remit so that Mr. Turner can consider longer-term cases and continue to give advice about the way in which the pensions industry needs to be reconfigured in the longer term?
Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I greatly appreciate the work that the Select Committee is currently undertaking and, as part of the consultative process on the Green Paper, I shall look with great interest at its recommendations and the outcomes of its work. The commission's proposed terms of reference are set out clearly in the Green Paper. First, it will make an assessment of the information that it needs to do its job. I know that the hon. Gentleman, like others in the House, has questioned the adequacy of statistics on pensions in the past—the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) referred to that. It is therefore important that an accurate baseline assessment is made. Having done so, the commission will assess long-term trends in savings—not just pensions, but other savings vehicles as well—and how well various partners in the pensions partnership are meeting their responsibilities, and will make recommendations accordingly.
Miss Anne Begg: I welcome the suggestion of a flexible retirement age and the rejection of any increase in the state retirement age. There is certainly a job to be done by the Government and employers in encouraging more people to work until the existing retirement age but, to do so, they need to tackle the issue of age discrimination in the workplace.
Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome. She is absolutely right—good as it is to enable people to
704
work beyond 65 if they wish to, the really important thing is to get more people to participate in the work force up to the age of 65. Building on the work that we have already done in the Age Positive Campaign, which has turned the tide—900,000 more people over 50 are in work now than in 1997—we should move on from the Green Paper to introduce legislation to prohibit age discrimination, as well as introducing other measures to enable and encourage people to carry on working where they are able to, and want to.
Mr. John Butterfill: We would all welcome any simplification of the tax rules, which will help some employers in particular. May I press the Secretary of State on a couple of matters? First, how will the proposals interface with all the legacy schemes introduced by the state—graduated pensions, SERPS, the guaranteed minimum pension and state second pensions? Will all those still be burdens on employers, as they are on our own pension scheme, as I know to my cost and that of the other trustees? Secondly, will the changes that the right hon. Gentleman is making in taxation effectively be retrospective? If so, will there not be some substantial losers, particularly those in pre-1970 schemes where, despite what the right hon. Gentleman said, there were no cash limits on what could be put in? Finally, will the Secretary of State and the Chancellor look at the possibility of allowing the first 25 per cent. of an annuity to be taken tax free, where the annuitant puts all of their pot into a pension, as many poorer pensioners should? At present all they can do is take a tax-free lump sum, which may be to their disadvantage.
Mr. Smith: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's expertise in these matters and welcome his recognition of the fact that the simplification measures will be of benefit to employers. With reference to the interface with the state system, I think I made it clear that the basic state pension, our proposals for the pension credit and the state second pension remain. There will, though, be a considerable gain to schemes and scheme administrators through the radical simplification of the measures in respect of the guaranteed minimum pension which, as he knows, is a great cause of complexity and cost. As regards the rights that people have under previous regimes, all accumulated rights will be respected and honoured. In so far as there will be losers, there will be disappointed expectations on the part of as few as 1,000 people, who might have been expecting to go beyond the limits that we are confirming with the new lifetime approach.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that for millions of ordinary people on average and lower incomes, a universal state pension at a much higher level than it is now will be the only way to avoid poverty in old age? Does he therefore accept the view expressed by his own adviser in The Times today that we should proceed towards a much better state pension without means-testing and based on compulsory contributions from both employers and employees?
Mr. Smith: I addressed that argument in my statement. I acknowledge and share my hon. Friend's concern that those on the poorest incomes should gain

705
security in their retirement through the state system, as well as through their own efforts. However, as I spelled out, the arithmetic is such that if we were to wrap up the minimum income guarantee in the basic state pension, yes, the basic state pension could go up by £10 a week, but those getting the minimum income guarantee—the poorest pensioners—would lose out to the tune of £17 a week. That is the arithmetic, which confirms that we are right not only to have increased the basic state pension, as the foundation, by more than inflation and by more than earnings, but to build on top of it an improved state second pension that will help 18 million people—many of them on low incomes, many of them carers or disabled people—as well as bringing in the pension credit, which will reward modest pensions and savings income, whereas it was penalised in the past.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: I welcome some of the things that the Secretary of State said, particularly about simplification of the tax regime and simplification of pensions in general. Does he recognise that some of the things that the Government have done in relation to introducing a minimum income guarantee and pension credit on the one hand, and on the other pledging themselves to the target of 60 per cent. from private funding, which I was pleased to hear him reconfirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the former Secretary of State, give the impression that the Government did not really know in which direction overall they were moving? Will the Secretary of State now commit himself to doing his utmost to reduce means-testing, and if so, what target would he introduce for reducing means-testing?
Mr. Smith: I accept and welcome the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges the benefits and gains from the statement and the Green Paper proposals that we have set out. On the core of his question, I believe that there is indeed a consistency of purpose in what we are doing. That purpose is to use the available resources to the best possible effect. Yes, we should help all pensioners, as we are doing—on average, they will be £1,150 better off next year in real terms—while giving greatest help to those who need it most in the £1,500 of benefit that will go to the poorest third of pensioners. At the same time, as we are proposing today, we must simplify and reform occupational and private pensions saving so that those who can afford to make more provision for their retirement or want to contemplate a longer working life can do so. At the interface between the two, we have the pension credit, whose great strength is that it gets us away from the pound-for-pound withdrawal of lower levels of saved and pension income to which I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's Front Bench and the Liberals would return us.
Sandra Osborne: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is not ruling out compulsion in the longer term if the voluntary approach does not work. I also thank the Minister for Pensions in particular for listening to the concerns of former United Engineering Forgings employees in my constituency, who stand to lose out greatly on their pension entitlement as the
706
company has gone into receivership. How will the proposals announced by the Secretary of State affect those workers, and how will they help them?
Mr. Smith: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's record of work on behalf of the constituents to whom she refers. We are consulting on proposals in the Green Paper that will strengthen protection for workers on the winding up of a company. In the case of solvent employers, we are consulting on options either for a full or partial buy-out of accumulated pension rights, and for insolvent employers, we are considering the opportunity of using a clearing house to get them better value and annuities that protect their future income. As the TUC has urged, we are also consulting on opportunities for mutual insurance, including the possibility of a central discontinuance fund.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The more the Secretary of State encourages flexibility for people to work beyond the state retirement age, with which I have no problem, the more important it will be for him to introduce flexibility in the requirement to take an annuity at the age of 75 for all those products that are money-purchase based. Why has he not reconsidered that issue? At the moment, he needs as much flexibility in the pensions market as he can get.
Mr. Smith: The problem is that what the hon. Lady advocates could be done only at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds. She and her party have to decide how much of a priority her proposal is. It is important to underline that annuities remain the only means of guaranteeing an income for as long as people live. It is one of the quirks of human nature that people are inclined to underestimate how long they will live. The Green Paper and tax simplification document contain very important proposals that will help prospective annuitants with the introduction of value-protected and limited-period annuities.
Rob Marris: The target used by many commentators and academics in describing what constitutes a reasonable pension is 67 per cent. of final earnings. Does the Secretary of State agree with that target and, if not, what percentage does he suggest?
Mr. Smith: I am very sceptical of the idea that expert commentators, the state or anybody else can specify what the replacement rate or, indeed, the long-term savings rate should be. I think that those decisions are better taken by families and individuals jointly with their employers throughout the country. As I said in my statement, for that to happen, people must have accurate information about their prospects and a simple range of products that they can trust, and they must be incentivised to do the right thing. Our proposals do all of that.
Annabelle Ewing: The Secretary of State has been less than convincing on how the provision of a decent state pension is compatible with the Government's increased reliance on means-testing.

707
Does he accept that means-testing is demeaning, unduly complex, acts as a disincentive to save, has a negative impact on take-up, and hence is failing our pensioners?
Mr. Smith: It is a distortion to refer to the proposal as though it is some old-style measure. Actually, it gets us away from weekly means-testing, with an assessment made every five years. Does the hon. Lady feel demeaned when her tax is assessed on that basis? What is the difference? If we are to make the best use of the limited funds available, it makes sense to give an entitlement that benefits everybody, but to have a system that enables us to get the most help to those who need it most. The logical implication of what the hon. Lady and those who think like her advocate is that we should take money from the poorest pensioners and give it to those who are better off. That does not commend itself to me.
Mr. George Mudie: I welcome the Minister strengthening the position of workers when a final salary pension scheme is wound up, but does that mean that he is giving up the ghost on final salary pension schemes, or is there enough in the Green Paper to persuade employers to continue to run them? On shareholders, does anything in the Green Paper increase the 1 per cent. cap in view of the low take-up? If not, what measures are in the Green Paper to increase take-up?
Mr. Smith: We certainly have not given up on final salary pension schemes. Employers, together with their employees, must determine those matters for the future. One welcome implication of our proposals is that employers will have to consult their employees before they change a scheme. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House support that. We shall encourage employers to provide good schemes by cutting administration costs by £150 million to £200 million.
As has been acknowledged in the industry, the 1 per cent. cap on charges has been of great benefit in driving down the level of charges. We shall consult early next year on the stakeholder suite of products, and evidence on the impact of the cap will be taken into account.
Angela Watkinson: Will the Minister clarify his intentions for the many very small businesses that are struggling for survival? Will there be a lower limit, in terms of annual turnover and the number of employees, below which there will be no requirement to participate in employees' pension schemes?
Mr. Smith: We are consulting on the proposals in the Green Paper precisely to take those views closely into account. Earlier, Conservative Front-Bench Members complained about our consulting. I think that it is right that we consult, so that we take into account the interests of the general public and, importantly, of small businesses as well as larger ones.
Paul Flynn: As it is virtually impossible to convince young people that they will ever grow old and need a pension, and very difficult to persuade young couples in the early furniture-buying,
708
child-rearing days of marriage to make adequate pension contributions, is not the only practical long-term solution a scheme based on compulsory contributions, guaranteed and underwritten by the Government because all parts of the private sector are no longer to be trusted? If compulsion is inevitable, why not have it sooner rather than later?
Mr. Smith: I take my hon. Friend's point about the difficulty of encouraging younger people to save. There are plenty of pressures on them to consume and spend their money in other directions. Our proposals include working in partnership with the Financial Services Authority and the financial services industry to intensify the drive to promote education and improve financial literacy so that people better understand what they need to do to save for the long term. The evidence shows that sending people a combined state and occupational pensions forecast has an impact, even on younger people's saving behaviour. However, the great merit of our lifetime limit on taxing pension contributions is the greater flexibility that it gives people to determine the period in their lives when they want to make the bulk of their savings for retirement.
My hon. Friend made the point that any compulsory system would have to be underwritten. If it were compulsory to contribute additional sums towards a pension, people would expect the state to stand behind what was guaranteed. That would resemble a tax to many people. I do not perceive much enthusiasm among young people for higher taxation.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State knows that self-employment is a growth industry. Many self-employed people in manual and construction industries live their lives according to the proverb that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. In the light of past pension mis-selling, and even the occasional failure of Governments to advise women about the reality of their choices, what guidance will be given to self-employed workers to take up a state second pension?
Mr. Smith: We must ensure that the self-employed are a priority for receiving the pension forecasts that we will give out to an increasing number of the working population. Evidence shows that the self-employed are polarised in their savings behaviour between those who have made adequate provision and those whose undersaving is potentially calamitous. It is important that they are alerted to the need to save more.
The Green Paper contains two pieces of especially good news for the self-employed. First, they will be able to opt into the state second pension. They need to judge for themselves whether to do that. Secondly, our new tax regime will allow much greater flexibility, for example, for people to transfer savings that are in an individual savings account, or released from housing or business equity, into a pension plan later in life that will attract tax relief. That could be especially beneficial to the self-employed.
Ms Candy Atherton: I welcome the Government's intention to legislate against age discrimination and enable older workers to choose when they retire. However, many employers find it

709
difficult to obtain insurance to enable them to continue to employ older workers. Will my right hon. Friend look into that?
Mr. Smith: Yes, I shall be pleased to do that. It is right to record that, in proceeding with our commitment to counter age discrimination, we are building on my hon. Friend's past legislative initiatives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know that we shall return to these matters. I therefore now call the next statement.

Transport Investment Plan
4.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, I should like to make a statement on transport investment. Today, I am publishing a report on progress since April 2001 on the 10-year investment plan for transport.
The plan commits the Government to spending more than £180 billion of public and private investment over 10 years. It is an unprecedented commitment, which will provide stability and increasing spending in the long-term. Maintaining the investment year after year is essential to make up for decades of under-investment and neglect.
Over 10 years, that means public expenditure of more than £22 billion on strategic roads, £33 billion on the railways and £51 billion on local transport. The plan marks the first time that a Government have been willing to commit themselves to such a level of funding over a long period. The funding makes and will continue to make a genuine difference.
If we examine other countries' successes in transport, the common factor is sustained investment year after year, decade after decade. That is why we remain committed to updating and rolling forward the plan in 2004 to coincide with the next public expenditure review. It will take account of progress so far and the challenges that have to be met in the years to 2015 and beyond.
Such long-term commitment and planning is essential to rebuild and maintain the transport infrastructure that we need for continued growth and prosperity. The report sets out the achievements of the first 18 months since the plan came into effect. As I told the House last week, our objective is to improve Britain's rail and road network. We take a balanced approach with investment to tackle congestion, improve reliability and make journeys safer, and to do so in a way that is consistent with our wider social and environmental obligations. I shall set out some of the key points.
Last week, I announced major investment designed to tackle congestion and improve journey times. Schemes will range from major enhancements of some of our key strategic routes—for example, the M1 and M6—as well as bypasses and smaller schemes to tackle bottlenecks. We have also introduced measures to manage better existing roads, and I also announced further investment in local transport and rail.
As the report makes clear, the latest analysis shows that there was more traffic in 2000 than had been thought. That, coupled with the fact that economic growth over the next 10 years is projected to be higher than anticipated, means that the forecasts made two years ago almost certainly underestimated the congestion that we face. Without the investment in the 10-year plan, congestion would have continued to rise unchecked. The report shows that we will not only stem that growth, but deliver considerable reductions in the congestion that we would otherwise have seen.
To tackle congestion, it is necessary to tackle its causes, which is why we are spending more to deal with bottlenecks on the roads system and spending more on public transport. Measures to tackle congestion are

711
beginning to make an impact. Bus use nationally has begun to grow after years of decline and stagnation, light rail use has grown by a third over the past two years and the number of rail passengers has increased by nearly a quarter since 1997. We clearly need to do more, but all that will be possible only because of the commitment to sustained investment year on year. I shall announce further measures next year.
The House will also wish to know that there has been a 15 per cent. reduction in deaths and serious accidents on roads. For children, there has been a 27 per cent. reduction, which is a tribute to all those who have done so much to improve road safety. On railways, public expenditure is estimated to be £33 billion compared with £29 billion 18 months ago. We are committed to sustaining that investment, as it is essential to improve both reliability and safety, but it is also essential that the industry get a grip of major projects.
The public rightly expect us to ensure that their money is well spent and that there is rigorous control of costs. Spending in the next few years will rise from £2.1 billion in 2001–02 to £4.3 billion in 2005–06, which means that, although there is £312 million less for the SRA over the coming three years than was forecast earlier this year, spending on rail is double that at the start of the plan.
That investment will deliver results only if costs in the industry are brought under control, which is why Richard Bowker, the Strategic Rail Authority chairman, is right to insist that the railway industry gets a proper grip on its costs—something that was conspicuously absent in the past. The report shows that the railways are carrying nearly a quarter more people than they were five years ago, but we will sustain that increase in use only if we can show that the service is better and, crucially, more reliable.
That needs more investment, but it also requires better management of the existing network, which is what the SRA is providing. The SRA is carrying out a review to ensure that the best use is being made of existing capacity, projects are more tightly managed and costs are driven down. As the report shows, significant public investment is going into the west coast main line, which will allow greater reliability, but only because the SRA and the industry showed their determination to exercise rigorous control of the project and its costs.
Progress is being made elsewhere, too: sustained investment year on year—over £1 billion-worth of new rolling stock has been introduced since April 2001 and a further 2,100 railway vehicles are on order; 90 per cent. of the first phase of the new channel tunnel rail link is complete, which is the first major new rail line for over 100 years; the installation of a new safety system, the train protection warning system, on about 70 per cent. of the track and about 90 per cent. of the passenger fleet; upgrading of the power supply for London commuter trains; and more maintenance, more renewals.
Investment yes, but, just as elsewhere, with investment must come reform. Every one of us knows that standards on our railways can be improved. The report shows that we are prepared to spend more, but, in return, the railway industry has to do far more to drive up standards and reliability. Our priority is to
712
deliver a safe and reliable transport system that enables people and goods to move around the country as easily and efficiently as possible. The plan sets out the investment to achieve that over a 10-year period.
There are no quick fixes or easy solutions. Sustained investment is needed year on year and over many decades. We are committed to the long haul, and to the sustained investment and improvements in services that are essential to our continued economic and social prosperity.
Mr. Tim Collins: As ever, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the fact that he is making a statement to the House at all. Yesterday, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said not once but twice that this would be a written, not an oral, statement. All hon. Members will welcome the Secretary of State's recognition that a fiasco of this magnitude required him to come to the House to face the music. Does he realise that, so bad is his predicament, some people may almost feel sorry for him? Does he accept that many will understand why he may have been reluctant to come here for his third statement of failure in as many weeks? Two weeks ago he made a statement after the courts threw out his airports consultation. Last week he made a statement on the need to reverse the Government's entire approach to road building. Today he makes a statement on the collapse of his rail policies. Is he as grateful as the nation that because of Christmas he cannot come here to make a statement next week, otherwise who knows what disasters he would have to admit to then?
Does the Secretary of State accept that he came here today not to praise the 10-year transport plan, but to bury it? Now that he has abandoned the congestion targets, scrapped the rail passenger target, done a complete U-turn on road building and admitted that many proposed rail infrastructure improvements will not happen, will he admit that the 10-year transport plan is so much of a corpse that Amanda Burton has been spotted preparing a post mortem?
The Secretary of State clearly has a sense of humour. He has produced a document entitled "Delivering Better Transport". My favourite corker line in it is:
"Overall, this report shows that we have made a good start".
If this is the Secretary of State's interpretation of a good start, one shudders to think what a bad start would have been. Will he clarify what he said this morning on the "Today" programme, when he claimed that he was "getting a grip" on costs in the rail industry? Will he confirm that, as the Under-Secretary set out in a parliamentary answer, the SRA's budget for 2001–02 was set at £1.28 billion but had to be increased to £1.87 billion? Does he concede that in the current year it was set at £2.17 billion and has risen again to £2.37 billion? How is that '"getting a grip" on costs? Given that record, is the SRA best placed to lecture the rest of the industry on the need for cost control?
On page 41 of the document, it says:
"The structure of Network Rail is designed to ensure that … it is incentivised to … drive down costs."
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as Network Rail's press office told the House of Commons Library today, the maintenance budget for the rail network has

713
risen from £1.9 billion in 1999–2000 to £3.8 billion this year? Will he also confirm that that includes a rise of £1 billion in the 12 months since the Government took control of Railtrack, and that it has been accompanied by an increase, not a cut, in the number of trains delayed by track work? Who is to blame for this explosion of costs in a company that, in his phrase, is now in the public sector? How does a doubling of those massive sums represent a driving down of costs?
Does the Secretary of State accept that, because of the complete collapse of cost control at Network Rail, the SRA is now telling the train operating companies that they may have to cope with 20 per cent. less subsidy, which will mean higher fares and fewer trains? Will he answer the question that he dodged on the "Today" programme this morning? Does he stick by the target in the 10-year transport plan to increase rail passenger numbers by 50 per cent.? If he sticks by that target, how does he propose to deliver it?
Will the Secretary of State clarify his excuses for all these failures? In his document, he says that we must avoid the years of
"stop-go funding and shifting policies."
Last year, the Government did not add one inch of tarmac to the national road network, and this year they have announced a huge increase in road building. What is that if not stop-go funding? There is no long-term policy consistency.
It is hinted in The Guardian today that the Secretary of State has said that the increase in congestion is because local authorities have not yet introduced congestion charging. Is he for or against congestion charging in London? He has dodged that question eight times on the radio, and he has three times refused to answer it in the House, so will he answer it today?
Does the Secretary of State endorse the comments of an off-the-record source in his Department, who told the BBC on Sunday that the Secretary of State blames the legacy of the Deputy Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) for the mess that he is in? Does that not come closest to the truth? Is the Secretary of State not just the fall guy, the loser at pass the parcel, the last one left in the room when the integrated transport policy disintegrated in his hands?
After five and half years of wasting time and money, after a list of broken promises and abandoned targets that has grown as long as a queue on the M6, and after yet another admission of complete and total failure today, will not the British public conclude that Labour has not got a clue about transport and is hopelessly, undeniably and uselessly incompetent?
Mr. Darling: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I can assure him that it is always a great pleasure to come to the House to debate with him. I look forward to it—indeed, at the weekend I was disappointed when at one point I thought that I might not be able to do so today. However, here we are, and as ever he has shown why it is such a pleasure for me to debate with him.
The first concession that the hon. Gentleman seemed to make was that, in his view, Mr. Jim Naughtie of Radio 4 is a better examiner of me than he is. That is evident, as he kept referring to all the things that I did or did not say to Mr. Naughtie. On the subject of the press,
714
I noticed that the hon. Gentleman put out a press statement that makes one or two criticisms of what we are doing. It concludes by stating:
"It's time for a new approach."
Does not that sum up his problem? He has promised us a new approach since the summer, but there are now less than seven days before Christmas and we have yet to get the Conservatives' new policies.
The other matters that he raised do perhaps merit a substantive reply. As I have said time and again, what the transport system needs—railways in particular, but roads as well—is a commitment by Governments to steady funding, year on year, decade by decade. The hon. Gentleman is critical of the current roads programme, but here I should give the previous Government some credit. Some of the roads that are being completed now were actually planned during the time of the previous Tory Government. However, it surely follows that one reason why fewer roads are being completed now is because of decisions that were taken 10 years ago, when, as a result of the economic crisis that the Tories ran into, they had a spot of bother with public spending. The point of the 10-year plan—[Interruption.] The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If they agree that some of the roads now being completed were planned under them, it follows that some of the roads not now being completed should have been authorised some years ago.
On the railways, again, we are dealing with something of a long-term problem. In complaining that we are spending too much on the railways, the hon. Gentleman expands on the Leader of the Opposition's firm promise that they are not going to match our spending on transport. So we must look forward to Tory cuts in their next manifesto. We have had to spend more on maintenance because after the Hatfield rail accident, it was manifestly obvious that the state of the railways was far worse than anybody in the industry—or, I suspect, in this House—ever realised.
That leads me to my second point. We do need to spend more on maintenance, and to spend money on making sure that we get a reliable train service, but as I said during Question Time, we must drive down costs. This is an industry that for many years did not have sufficient regard to the need for proper cost control. Many Members have rightly said, "Why are you giving more money to people who ask for more funds to renew their franchises? Why aren't you just saying no?" I understand that point, but I am saying through the SRA to the industry, "You need to get control of your costs and to drive up standards." I make no apology for the fact that we are spending more and telling the industry that it must get a proper grip on funding.
Finally, although the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his criticisms if he can, he cannot get away from the fact that the fundamental problems—be it road congestion or train reliability and the need to maintain the track—require steady investment. For as long as the Tory policy is to spend less on the trains, they have limited credibility in this area.
Mr. Don Foster: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, although hon. Members will rarely have heard one more unjustifiably complacent. Is not the 10-year transport

715
plan in tatters? Does the Secretary of State accept that he has had as dismal a month as any experienced by rail commuters?
In the past month, we have learned that rail delays have doubled under Labour, and that cancellations are up by 50 per cent. Bus and rail fares have increased in real terms, while the cost of motoring has fallen. We have learned also that, under Labour, buses outside London are carrying fewer passengers, that the airport consultation paper was illegal and biased, that there has been improper accounting of Network Rail, and that the public-private partnership for London Underground no longer offers value for money. Moreover, we have learned that Labour's road congestion targets will not be met, that rail improvement projects are being shelved, that some rail services are being abandoned, and that passengers will be expected to pay even higher fares.
To cap it all, the Secretary of State has returned to the failed predict-and-provide approach to the road building programme. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) asked, how can the Secretary of State claim in today's report that the Government have made a "good start" to delivering the improvements envisaged in the 10-year plan? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only way to tackle rising road congestion is to provide an integrated public transport system that is safe, reliable and affordable? How can that be achieved by cutting rail services, increasing fares and reducing by £312 million the money going to the SRA? How can it be achieved by initiating—against the advice of the Government's own advisory bodies—a massive road building programme that contains not even a hint of road pricing? How can it be achieved when the Department for Transport does not even monitor all the aspects of its own plan?
Why is it only now that the Secretary of State has woken up to the massively escalating costs of rail improvements and maintenance? Even his predecessor acknowledged the problems created when there are too many contractors on the line.
The 10-year plan is unravelling, so does the Secretary of State accept that it was flawed from the start and that claims of available funding and anticipated outcomes were massively exaggerated? If this is to be yet another of the lines in the sand for transport so often promised by his predecessor, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that at least there will be no fiddled figures this time, that realistic targets will be set, and that he will work with others to find the imaginative and innovative solutions needed to produce the truly integrated transport system that this country needs and deserves?
Mr. Darling: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not send an advance copy of his statement to me, as he has clearly been preparing it for some time.
The hon. Gentleman raises a number of matters, but I have made it clear that the progress report merely details what has happened in the 18 months since the 10-year plan was put in place. It is an investment plan, and its essential element is the allocation of £180 billion of private and public money over a 10-year period. That money remains in place, and will be spent. Indeed,
716
some £6 billion in the second half of the plan remains unallocated, and I shall allocate that in the coming period.
The money is there, and the hon. Gentleman's assertion that something has happened to change that is simply wrong. The money is there, and it is beginning to make a difference. There is no doubt that the scale of the task in relation to road congestion and the railways is far greater than many people believed when the plan was put in place, but that is something that we must face up to. People know from their day-to-day experience what the problems are, and it is no use politicians pretending that there are easy and simple solutions.
The hon. Gentleman implied that he would want to spend more on public transport, and I understand that that is the Liberal position. I tackled the hon. Gentleman last week about his party's new spending plans, but his fellow Liberals may not be aware that they contain five tests that must be met. One test is that the pledge has to be funded within current budgets, so the hon. Gentleman's party is not making any more money available. Another test that must be passed is whether any project could not be delivered better by the private sector. That goes rather further than any other major political party.
The hon. Gentleman says that his policy is to raise the cost of motoring, at the same time as complaining about it. I would love to see that being peddled around some rural constituencies as a Liberal policy.
Andrew Mackinlay: Does the word "abracadabra" come to mind?
Mr. Darling: Many words come into my mind in connection with the Liberals, but most of them are probably unparliamentary.
The key point is this. The 10-year plan set out an investment strategy, involving both public and private money, covering a far longer period than had ever been covered before. It is our job to make sure that we tackle the problems, which is why I announced the investment in roads last week. Incidentally, although the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) condemned it, three of his colleagues said that they wanted even more to be spent on the roads. We must also get to grips with the rail problems, but they are deep-seated. I have always said that we are in this for the long haul.
We need to gain control of costs, but I am confident that in time we can begin to change, and build a transport system that will underpin our continued economic success. We will not do that, however, without the continuing investment to which the Government are committed—unlike the Conservatives, who are committed to the opposite, and unlike the Liberals, who would never be able to fund all their aspirations despite the injunction now imposed on them.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the quality of the opposition that he has managed to arouse this afternoon. Few people, surely, could have such obtuse and unhelpful policies to offer as criticisms of his plans.
May I ask the Secretary of State a rather simpler question? As his Department knows, it is important to remember that if we manage to keep motoring costs

717
constant we can affect congestion by 6 per cent. Given that public transport costs appear to be rising despite his best efforts, will he please accept that we must now start looking at the costs of motoring as well as railways?
Mr. Darling: I understand my hon. Friend's view, which she has expressed consistently for a long time, but we must consider not just the costs of motoring but the attractiveness, as well as the availability, of public transport. In too many parts of the country, it needs substantial improvement. I am thinking particularly of rural bus services. As for the railways, while there is no doubt that more money is going in and reliability and punctuality have improved over the past year, there is still a long way to go.
Our strategy is this. We need to invest in public transport—to spend more on supporting railways and buses—and also encourage local authorities to draw up proper plans for improving the environment of town and city centres, thus encouraging people to use public transport and leave their cars at home whenever that is possible. As I have said, however, it is also important for any transport strategy to be balanced and measured. There must be a balance between the private car and public transport, and that is the objective in our plan
Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Thameslink 2000 plan, announced with great fanfare in his predecessor's 10-year plan and delayed within 10 weeks because of environmental problems, has now—after 10 months—been deferred indefinitely owing to cost overruns? Can he also confirm that there will be fewer services on the lines taking my constituents to London? When will they see any improvement, rather than deterioration, while plans are constantly being delayed?
Mr. Darling: The environmental problems to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are planning problems. No Government and no railways can get around the fact that planning permission must be applied for.
As I have said a number of times in the House when I have been asked similar questions about Thameslink, we must bear it in mind that we are trying to build a railway rather than redeveloping parts of London. In the case of Thameslink, some people have seen an opportunity to do an awful lot of redevelopment along the way. That inflates costs, and while it may be desirable for development reasons it does not help us to build the railway.
I am anxious to get Thameslink extended. The right hon. Gentleman is right: it has been a major boon for London, opening links between north and south that existed to no real extent for a long time. Two things are necessary for the extension. We must secure the planning consent, which is being considered at the moment, and the project—like all rail projects—must be both affordable and deliverable. If those things can be achieved, Thameslink will significantly improve north-south links across London, and I for one would dearly like that to happen.
Linda Perham: May I ask my right hon. Friend about the prospects for the Crossrail project? It is extremely important that reliability and
718
congestion for those who commute from my part of east London are improved. Will he assure me that the Government are committed to backing that project for the next 10 years?
Mr. Darling: It might help if I tell my hon. Friend and the House where we are on that. When I looked at the plans a couple of months ago, it was clear that we did not have something that was sufficiently worked up and deliverable to be able to cost it and draw up plans to put in place. I therefore asked the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London to come up with workable, affordable and deliverable plans by the end of February. That work is being done.
On the general point, there can be no doubt that, with what is happening in London now, and especially taking into account forecasts for the future, the need for an east-west rail link is important. The amount of development at Canary Wharf, the Thames gateway and other areas means that there will be significant transport pressures. Given the time it takes to deliver any major rail infrastructure project, the sooner we get on to producing such plans, the better. I must emphasise, not just today but no doubt for many weeks to come, that I make no bones about the fact that, unless we start to control costs and tell people that they cannot just think of a number and expect us to pay it, we will not see such projects. As it is, I very much hope that we can get something done because those two main crossings—Crossrail and Thameslink—are critical for the future of London for the next 50 years.
Alistair Burt: When the Government and their associated transport agencies can be so cavalier and treat so lightly their targets and commitments, why do they still require the county of Bedfordshire to build a substantial number of new houses over the next decade, thus adding to rail and road congestion?
Mr. Darling: On targets, as I said earlier, the scale of the congestion problem is far greater than people thought, but that does not mean that we do not tackle it. I am telling the House—I have been open about this for sometime—that because the scale of the problem is greater, it will take longer to achieve the targets. That does not mean, however, that we abandon the objective.
Sadly, I do not have ministerial responsibility for housing policy, but I know that there are pressures on transport links between Bedfordshire and London and other parts of the country. I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman take up the issue of housing with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: A paragraph of the helpfully produced statement refers to projects being "more tightly managed" and to costs being driven down. Having visited the RMT's quarterly conference in Perth earlier this year, I know that part of the difficulty is that there are fewer and fewer engineers who are capable of tight management. If, over the long term—this is a long-term matter—more rail engineers could be trained, that might solve part of the problem.
Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that, especially during the Railtrack period, a

719
number of railway engineers simply left or used other aspects of their engineering skills and were not available to the railways. I suspect that the industry will pay a heavy price for that for some time to come. The former Secretary of State for Transport set up the rail academy to try to encourage the training of more engineers. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is imperative that we encourage people into this career. With the right management and the right controls, the railways have a good future and should offer a very good career for someone with engineering skills—either a young person or somebody who is currently working elsewhere. The Government will do all that we can to help the industry to attract such people, because that is its future.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State look into a perversity of the punctuality target system? For example, if a train on the Waterloo to Reading service is running late, an announcement is made to passengers that the train will not to stop at up to seven intermediate stations so that it can get to Reading on time, which completely disrupts and messes up their journey. I am sure that that was not intended. Do we not need a different system so that everyone can arrive on time, rather than just the few people going to the terminus?
Mr. Darling: As part of the franchising agreement, the SRA is looking at some of the perverse incentives in the system. It has also announced that the south-west line will be the first in Britain whose management—the day-to-day operation—will be the same for both the track and the train operator. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that one of the by-products of privatisation is that the track is managed separately from the trains, and that we have ended up with the absurd situation in which a train operator could see a fire on the line but could do nothing about it without contacting the track operator. On the south-west line, the SRA is trying out a new system with one general manager. That will be much better because it will begin to tackle one of the fundamental flaws of privatisation—the belief that the track and the trains have no relationship to each other. In reality, they are intimately related, so unitary management will be much better.
Geraint Davies: In focusing public money on congestion hotspots, will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the marginal cost of car usage versus the marginal cost of public transport usage, especially when evaluating the London congestion charging scheme? The scheme is expected to generate an operating profit of £121 million next year, which could be set against the cost of public transport systems in the capital.
Mr. Darling: It is clear that the money raised from congestion charging schemes in London or elsewhere must go back into transport improvements. In general, the Government are keen to ensure that public transport is improved, and the Croydon tram scheme is an example. A lot of money was put into the scheme and it is working well. On my hon. Friend's central point,
720
if money is to be raised from motorists by congestion charging, it must go back into improving public transport.
Pete Wishart: After the privatisation nightmare of the Conservative years, it is hard to believe that things could actually get worse on the railways, but somehow the Government have conspired to achieve just that. Will the Secretary of State explain how the reduction in subsidy and the expected higher fares will attract more people on to the railways? What does he say to the hard-pressed rail users of Scotland who have already been short-changed by the SRA and who now face a further deterioration in their service?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is wrong: so far, the subsidy has not come down. Indeed, we have the opposite problem: many train operating companies are coming to us and asking for more and more money. On behalf of the Government and on behalf of people who pay taxes for such things, I have to say that we must be satisfied that the expenditure can be justified and that the companies need to take far tighter control of costs. In relation to the railways generally, it is worth bearing it in mind that, since 1997, they have carried about a quarter more passengers. Of course, there are problems in the system, which is why we need more investment. The hon. Gentleman represents a Scottish constituency, so he will know that, for example, the line to Inverness has been plagued by problems with landslips and so on. Many of the problems stem from successive underinvestment. That is why we are putting more money into the system, which the hon. Gentleman would be unable to do because of the policies espoused by his party.
Helen Jackson: It is not the fault of the people of Sheffield that the bulk of their train services are provided by Virgin Cross Country, with its new trains and their lousy reliability, and Arriva Transpennine, which has pretty awful trains with even worse reliability. I am sure that the people of Sheffield would blame not my right hon. Friend's investment programme but the botched privatisation scheme of the previous Conservative Government. Will he urge the private companies to put things right, as they promised? They may deliver new services, yet Virgin's promised new half-hourly services regularly run up to an hour late on almost every route.
Mr. Darling: When the Virgin Cross Country service was introduced in September, it was generally welcomed because the quality of the rolling stock was a lot better; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) commented on it. That is worth noting, but the problems arise from two sources. First, there have been problems with the reliability of the new trains. Although teething problems are inevitable to some extent—British Rail had them and, I suppose, anyone would have them—sorting them out has taken longer than might have been thought.
The second thing, which is a serious problem throughout the railway network, relates to capacity, particularly in the midlands, where Virgin Cross Country trains encounter other mainline services. That problem arises with a fragmented railway system,

721
because, under the present rules, which are about to change, people can say, "I want to run more trains on the railways; I am entitled to do it," without any regard to the knock-on effect on other operators.
Those things are being sorted out by the SRA, but although I accept what my hon. Friend says about the need to improve reliability, which is critical if we are to get more people on to the trains, we need to look at the underlying problems, and they are being looked at. However, it is welcome that those behind the industry want to transform cross-country services, which were pretty lousy in the old BR days, into something better. The difficulty is that we have a wee bit further to go before we can reach that happy position.
Mr. George Osborne: After all the advance briefing and spin, the Secretary of State could not bring himself to say in the statement that the Government have abandoned the central target of cutting congestion. In its place, can he offer this prediction: will congestion be higher, lower or about the same in three years' time compared with today?
Mr. Darling: I would not have described the weekend's press as spin—not from my point of view, anyway. If that is the hon. Gentleman's idea of spin, I can understand why his party is in such difficulty at the moment. I have made no bones about the congestion target. It is hardly spin to tell "Newsnight" in an interview with Mr. Paxman that I did not think that we would hit the target. I was answering the question that was put to me. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) should have asked me that question in the House, but he did not. I do not know why.
I make no bones about the fact that, for the reasons that I have stated, I do not think that the congestion target will be reached in the expected time scale, but the amount of congestion would be spiralling out of control if we had not put such measures in place. Those measures will have a substantial impact on the growth that would otherwise have taken place, so I am being straightforward with hon. Members and the public. When Ministers realise that there is a problem in relation to such things, they should tell the House and the public generally because, frankly, what the public want to hear is not so much the recriminations about the whys and wherefores, but what we are doing to sort out the problem. Unlike the Conservative party, we have a plan, a programme and investment to sort it out.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today and particularly his confirmation that the transport plan involves substantial long-term investment. May I ask him whether he regularly assesses the transport plan's impact on climate change? In particular, does he consider that the review of the first 18 months of the plan that he has announced today will enhance the ability of UK transport to contribute to carbon dioxide emission reductions?
Mr. Darling: It is important that the transport plan, and everything that the Department for Transport does, has regard to our environmental obligations. That is one reason why the Department is keen to support and
722
improve technology for cleaner cars and so on. We are keen to reduce congestion because there is no doubt that congestion leads to increased pollution. Again, one of the major objectives of the 10-year plan is to put more money into public transport because it consumes energy more efficiently. So my hon. Friend is right: the interests of the environment are clearly served by ensuring that we maintain the 10-year investment plan, which is what we intend to do.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what impact the proposals will have on the midland main line to Leicester and beyond, which has improved so much since privatisation? What impact will it have on the Leicester to Hinckley and Birmingham line? Does he not feel a deep sense of humiliation coming to the House this afternoon as a Labour Minister and presenting policies that reduce subsidies to railways, which his party has always gone on about as being so important? Is it not disingenuous to ignore the transport achievements that took place under Conservative Governments, such as the conception to completion of the M25 motorway system?
Mr. Darling: I would like to study the hon. Gentleman's question tomorrow, as I picked up only bits of it, and it seemed to range from the midland main line to the M25.
Mr. Tredinnick: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Darling: Nothing in principle; I just did not quite follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question. The central point, I think, is that we need to maintain investment to improve the quality of services, and we will need to maintain investment in both road and rail. We do, however, need to control costs. If he asks me whether I have difficulties about controlling costs, my answer is no. Had the last Conservative Government had some regard to controlling costs, they might not have embarked on the privatisation of the railways in the way that they did. Without doubt, that contributed significantly to costs getting out of control in far too many cases.
Andrew Bennett (Denton and Reddish): Does my right hon. Friend accept that part of the way in which we ought to measure the 10-year plan is by how far it reduces the need and the desire of people to travel? Part of that is making sure that people can live and work much closer together, and the other part must be enabling people to walk or cycle to work. What is happening to the money to be spent on making it more attractive for people to walk and cycle?
Mr. Darling: On the latter point, it is important that local authorities—mostly, they are responsible—pay particular attention to creating environments in which people feel safe when they want to walk or cycle to work. That is happening in a number of towns and cities, but more can be done. In relation to my hon. Friend's more substantive point, I understand the argument that we should try to locate people and their place of work closer together. During the 1970s and 1980s, many transport planners and town planners felt that that was possible.

723
I am not sure whether I would adopt that as a major part of a transport solution. It is a fact of life that people are likely to move jobs more frequently, which means that, from time to time, they will probably have to travel further than otherwise.
I agree with my hon. Friend's first point, however, in relation to the attractiveness of public transport. I cite the west coast main line, which I know affects him and his constituents. There is no doubt that if, for example, we ask someone travelling from Manchester to London why they do not use public transport, we must be able to point to a reliable, frequent, clean, safe train service as an alternative. The west coast main line will go a long way to providing that, as will—given that we are in praise of Virgin—the new electric tilting trains, which will come into service next year. I understand that, yesterday, a train went to Manchester in just over two hours, which is a significant improvement on the current service. There will be improvements in years to come, but I do not shrink from the fact that we face a significant long haul to accomplish the changes that we all want.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I would hope that all hon. Members standing would be able to catch my eye. If we have short questions and answers, that might be possible.
Tom Brake: What allowance has the Secretary of State made for potential cost overruns in his plans, as he will be aware that, yesterday, the cost of the public-private partnership contracts went up by £300 million?
Mr. Darling: The position is that we make provision for the likely costs. It would be a big mistake, however, to build into our budget provision for cost overruns, as that would be an open invitation to people at large to come and get us. That is certainly not our policy, although it may be the policy of the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Eric Martlew: In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), my right hon. Friend said that the rail academy had been set up. The reality is that the project is stalled in the Strategic Rail Authority at present, and there is great concern that it will be downgraded and even abandoned. There is a massive skills shortage on the railway, and without that rail academy we will not meet the 10-year plan.
Mr. Darling: I have seen the letter that my hon. Friend wrote to me about this subject, and I am about to reply to him now. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that it is planned to set up a rail academy, but it will not physically be situated in Carlisle or anywhere else. It will simply be a means by which we can enable more training to take place in different places up and down the country. It will not be like a university that is situated in one place. However, I plan to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) to set out the position fully.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I was interested in what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of building capacity. How many local transport plans contain proposals for reopening old lines or building new railways?
Mr. Darling: The answer is that a number of them do, but they are not always matched with the means of doing it.
Mr. Prentice: Is my right hon. Friend going to do something about it?
Mr. Darling: In some cases, there is an argument for reopening or building heavy rail, and we talked about Crossrail earlier. In other areas, heavy rail may not be the solution. For example, much of Manchester's light-rail metro runs across lines previously used by heavy rail. I would not sign up to the proposition that heavy rail is always the solution. However, when local authorities are considering that option, they need to come up with a proposal for paying for it and must ensure that the sums add up.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend has rightly focused on costs and on the need to get a grip on them and force them down. It is instructive to compare the costs in BR days with those of today. Rail infrastructure costs have trebled in less than 10 years, and the cost of replacing a mile of railway line is now £1.5 million, compared with £350,000 under BR. The contracting culture and privatisation have caused the problem. Will he not accept that we must, in all practical terms, look to public ownership of the railways once more?
Mr. Darling: That would be one way of spending quite a lot of money. My hon. Friend's point about rail costs increasing is true, but it is over-simplistic to suggest that it is all due to the fact that contractors are used. We have to spend more to replace railways because an awful lot of them were built by our Victorian forefathers. They were maintained in the BR days, but are now coming up for wholesale replacement.
The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) has left the Chamber. He was briefly in the place occupied by the Scottish nationalists but has now been replaced by a Welsh nationalist. However, I told the hon. Gentleman that the structures on the highland line that were collapsing were built by the Victorians. The problem is that not enough money was spent on them over the years. Therefore, we now have to spend more per mile to replace them than we would have done if we were simply conducting routine maintenance or even renewals 30 or 40 years ago.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend accept that what has been said about buses—very little indeed—will not be that well received by average punters in what is laughingly called a bus shelter in Hemel Hempstead or Kings Langley? They often wait for an hour or more with absolutely no information about when, if ever, they will see a service. Much of the time, services are summarily withdrawn.
Will my right hon. Friend investigate the suggestion that we should have a strategic bus authority, which, among other things, would have as part of its brief the

725
provision of information for bus passengers along the lines of the information that is currently available for London Transport passengers? People would then be enticed to use buses and would not have to put up with the current fiendishly awful system.
Mr. Darling: In my defence, I have not said much about buses because no one has asked me much about them. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would no doubt have something to say if I volunteered lots of information without being asked for it.
On my hon. Friend's point about the particular problem in Hemel Hempstead, he has no doubt had a word with his local authority. Last week, in the local government settlement, I announced that significant sums were available. There is a lot more money for transport, but we look to local authorities for the provision of bus services.
On the point about a strategic bus authority, I am bound to say that my instinct is not to set up another bureaucracy. That can sometimes be a distraction from the main point, which is to ensure that we have better bus services.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: What assurances can my right hon. Friend give that improvements in passenger and freight services will assist the ongoing economic regeneration of Liverpool? May I also thank him for his decision to approve the tram line in Liverpool? That will certainly help.
Mr. Darling: On the last point, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I noticed that she thanked me before I announced that decision in the local press.
726
On passengers and freight, there is no doubt that the upgrading of the west coast main line, which is an essential part of the links to Liverpool, will mean that there is more capacity for both passengers and freight. My hon. Friend is the first to ask about freight. It is worth noting the 7 per cent. increase in the number of trains that carry freight, and that should be welcomed.
Mr. Andy Reed: I am glad that my right hon. Friend mentioned the reduction in the number of road deaths. I am sure he would agree, however, that it is unacceptable that about 3,500 people are still killed on our roads every year. Will he ensure that part of the investment will be used to reduce the speed of motorists, especially in villages in my constituency? We also need increased investment to get a reliable bus service. People are transferring to their cars because bus services across the country are unreliable. Will he ensure that that and the investment in local transport plans lead to a greater reduction in the number of people killed on our roads every year?
Mr. Darling: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Although our roads are relatively safe compared with those in the rest of Europe, nine people will be killed on our roads today. When we discuss the safety of other modes of transport and when the measures taken by local authorities to discourage cars going at speed are criticised, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that nine families today will lose someone. No Government should sit back and tolerate that. It is why I will never apologise for measures taken either by us as a national Government or by local authorities to make our roads safer. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that.

Points of Order
5.26 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, of which I have given notice. The Ministry of Defence announced today that it has begun preparations for a possible war against Iraq. Letters are going out to reservists, contracts are being sought for cargo ships to move troops and equipment, and tanks are being prepared for use in the desert. Furthermore, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, indicated that later this week the US will reject the dossier that the Iraqis submitted to the UN. That is hardly a surprise to anyone who recognises how much President Bush wants to go to war.
The House starts its Christmas recess on Thursday, so MPs could be left without any opportunity of expressing their views about going to war. The last debate on Iraq certainly did not give us that opportunity. Has the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Defence said whether a statement on Iraq and a possible war against it will be made before the Christmas recess?
Mr. Tarn Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hiring cargo ships does not come cheap. Can the House of Commons be told about the terms of compensation before any action is taken? If those terms have been worked out, one draws the inevitable conclusion that the decision to go to war has already been made because compensation is crucial in that matter. I have just returned from giving the Zayed lecture in Abu Dhabi. Arabs from all over the Gulf think that the war is an extraordinary folly that sets the Christian world against the Islamic world. Surely the House of Commons should have a statement before the recess.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I am unaware of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Defence making such a request. However, the points raised by both hon. Members are on the record and the respective Ministers will be aware of them.
Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I gave notice of the fact that I want to raise the way in which the House authorities
728
accommodate demonstrators. In the main debate last night, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said:
"Is it true that the hon. Gentleman"—
the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)—
"sponsored 1,000 people to come to the House to demonstrate and that he put them in Room W1?"
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire replied:
"The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have sponsored no one to come here today".—[Official Report, 16 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 636.]
A statement issued by the Metropolitan police giving advance notice of a mass lobby estimated that 1,000 people would be accommodated in Room W1, and named the sponsoring Members as Mr. Peter Atkinson and Mr. James Gray. I have spoken to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to give him notice of my point of order, and he explained that he had not sponsored that group of people because he understood sponsorship to mean a financial contribution. Of course, I accept that explanation entirely, but in case my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham is accused of misleading the House—he is a sensitive person, as we all know—the record must be put straight.
There is a further serious point. If the House authorities are booking Room W1 for 1,000 people, we know that at least 970 of them—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask whether, overnight, there has been a transformation of Room W1, which, to my knowledge, manages with some difficulty to hold only 15 people at most?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) has certainly made his point, and it is now on the record.

ROYAL ASSENT
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 2002
Appropriation (No. 2) Act 2002

Orders of the Day

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  [Relevant documents: Thirteenth Report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2001–02, on The Planning Green Paper, HC 476-I, and the Government Response thereto, Cm 5625; Planning, Competitiveness and Productivity: Memoranda submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 114-II; and Memorandum on Planning, Competitiveness and Productivity: Research commissioned from Roger Tym and Partners by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 114-III.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.31 pm
  The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  On 18 July, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced to the House the need for a step change in the Government's policies for building successful, thriving and inclusive communities in all regions. He will publish a communities plan in the new year setting out the way in which we will develop our policy. We will set our policy on improving housing in an overall context of creating and maintaining sustainable communities. Every action in the plan will be underpinned by that objective. To create and maintain sustainable communities successfully, we need to work together at all levels to improve local economies; promote safety and stability; provide good-quality public services; build a skills base; and engage with our communities.
  Any plan needs to be set against our wider agenda of strengthening local and regional government, community engagement, community cohesion and social inclusion. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill currently being considered by the House gives regions, if their people so choose, a distinct political voice and a real say over decisions that matter to them. For the first time, regions will have responsibility for taking greater control over things that matter to people—economic development, regeneration, planning, housing, transport, health, culture and the environment.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: That Bill will give regional authorities dramatic powers. Should they not be left with county councils in areas that have not voted for a regional assembly?
  Mrs. Roche: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the regional planning body includes many directly elected members or local councillors who, of course, are directly accountable to their electorate. He also knows that many Conservative councillors are strong members of those regional chambers. During my time at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and, before that, at the Cabinet Office, I have had the pleasure of meeting many Conservative councillors who are engaged with such
  730
  bodies and make a strong contribution to them. I am not sure that they would recognise the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. McLoughlin rose—
  Mrs. Roche: No, I must make progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. I am sure that he will seek to catch Madam Deputy Speaker's eye later.
  The Local Government Bill, which is also before the House, offers new flexibility and extends the freedoms available to local government. It will free successful councils to innovate and make real improvements in local services and the quality of life in their communities. A reformed planning system is a key tool in delivering sustainable communities. That is the purpose of the Bill.
  Planning is critical to the delivery of new housing, the transport infrastructure, hospitals and schools. It is critical to ensure that we make the best use of our land, increasing development on brownfield sites and protecting and enhancing our green belt and valuable countryside.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: If transport is so important to planning, why do the Government's proposals leave the responsibility for transport with county councils, not with the regional authorities?
  Mrs. Roche: We already have regional planning guidance. We have an unnecessary layer, the county structure plans, which in the main replicate what is done at national and regional level. Of course, there is a part to be played by the counties and others in transport plans, but we envisage that where people would like elected regional assemblies, those should have powers in transport matters.
  As I said, it is critical that we make the best use of our land and protect valuable countryside.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the hon. Lady clarify whether the compulsory purchase powers in the Bill will enable councils to deal with the problem where companies such as Property Spy buy up greenbelt land, sell off little fragments at inflated prices claiming that it could be developed some day, allow it to become derelict and an eyesore, and thereby hope to hasten development? Can compulsory purchase powers be used to cope with that problem?
  Mrs. Roche: I shall come to that aspect, but the Bill does not deal with all aspects of compulsory purchase. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a great interest in that topic. The Bill already contains some 90 clauses, but that does not mean that it is the end of the process on planning. We have limited our objectives to a number of key compulsory planning issues. I shall deal with compulsory purchase a little later.
  The current planning system has served the country well, but it needs reform to support the new agenda. Anyone looking at the record over past decades will recognise that all Governments have failed to address the problems of the planning system. Too many councils fall short of the targets for handling planning

  731
  applications. Too many local plans are out of date and no longer reflect the realities that many communities face.
  We set out our proposals for reform in the planning Green Paper last year. We received more than 16,000 responses—one of the biggest responses to consultation on record—which amply demonstrates the importance of the planning system. There was certainly a consensus about the need for change. All of us as constituency Members have experience of planning issues and know how important they are to our local communities.
  Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend mentioned the consultation papers published by the Government over the past few years. The responses to the papers mention planning gain as an important issue. Why have the Government not taken the opportunity to clarify the rules on planning gain in the Bill?
  Mrs. Roche: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which is extremely important. I have seen in my constituency and elsewhere and heard from councillors of various parties how helpful planning gain under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is. I can assure him that revised guidance will be used. I hope that that will satisfy him.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister referred to our experience of the planning system as constituency Members. How does she recommend that we explain to our constituents the new proposals for local development, which include a local development framework, local development schemes, local development documents, development plan documents, action plans and statements of community involvement? Does she think that that system will be easier to explain than the current one?
  Mrs. Roche: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman—in my legal days, that opening was usually the polite way of being slightly rude, but of course, I would have no intention of doing any such thing in this honourable House—if he looks closely at the Bill and the Green Paper, he will see that, in talking about a local development framework, we are referring not only to the documents that will form part of that framework, but to the process of involving local communities. We may explore that matter further in Committee, but I think that he will find that it is simpler than he has suggested.
  We have listened to the concerns that have been expressed. In July, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out our response to the consultation in our paper on sustainable communities, "Delivering through Planning". We continue to listen. As with any legislation, the Bill will not be the last word on the matter. However, while we continue to listen, our objectives for the Bill are straightforward. We want to make the system fairer, faster and more predictable and to bring to planning clarity, certainty and more strategic direction.
  732
  Of course, the reform agenda is not only about legislation. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced in July an extra £350 million for the planning system over the next three years. Some £50 million will be released in the next financial year.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I welcome the additional £350 million, but my understanding is that it will not be ring-fenced. If that is the case, surely it is wrong, because we want to give specific direction and resources to planning authorities so that decisions can be made more efficiently.
  Mrs. Roche: Ring-fencing has been the subject of lively discussion, but we think that planning is about local democracy and trusting local authorities.
  We will set out for the House the full details of how the new grant will operate. The extra money will go to the authorities that demonstrate their commitment to high-quality planning. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the main elements of the grant in his pre-Budget report. It will incentivise improved performance by local planning authorities and reward authorities in proportion to the extent of their performance improvement. Some of it will be used to strengthen regional planning and support delivery of existing housing targets.
  Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of strengthening the process is to put more resources into parish and town councils? In rural areas, one of the ways in which we can build consensus is by developing a capacity for local people to feel genuinely involved in the planning process. There is no better way of doing that than through parish and town councils.
  Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Bill takes nothing away from the existing rights of parish councils. One issue that we are exploring is how, by working with other organisations, we can improve the quality of planning decisions at officer level and also in respect of councils and representatives. Although not necessarily a part of today's discussion, it is an important aspect of the planning system.
  Alan Simpson: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend speak about strengthening local authorities' powers to make better quality and speedier decisions. One of the great frustrations of urban authorities, particularly those with universities based in them, is their inability to secure sustainable communities in the face of huge increases in property acquisitions and conversions to houses in multiple occupation. Will it be possible, under the powers set out in the Bill, for local authorities to set ceilings on their areas' capacity to deal with that overloading of property conversions for letting, which hinders the survival of sustainable communities?
  Mrs. Roche: I understand the important point that my hon. Friend makes. It is not a precise point for this legislation, but it is certainly important for my colleagues involved in that aspect of the Department's work.

  733
  As I was saying in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), we will issue new guidance on how planning obligations will work to make the section 106 planning obligations system more transparent and simple.
  This is not just about setting targets for local authorities and asking them to do better. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will lead the way in setting itself challenging targets for handling Secretary of State cases. We shall continue to review planning policy statements to make them clearer and more succinct. I think that that will be appreciated by all hon. Members.
  Successful planning reform also depends on a change in planning culture. I add to the point made earlier about our needing to improve the education and training, and raise the skills and morale, of both planners and councillors. We also need to look at ways of spreading best practice and providing help and guidance to local authorities. Whatever the differences of opinion across the House about the approach to the planning system and planning reform, we all agree that planning is vital to our communities. Therefore, we all subscribe to raising standards and spreading best practice for both planning officials and councillors.
  Mr. Andrew Love: Does my hon. Friend agree that education for local authority councillors is important also in this regard: they should focus not just on the narrow, local planning aspects of the decisions that they take, but on the wider regional and even national issues involved?
  Mrs. Roche: I absolutely agree, which is why we shall continue to work closely with local government associations and others to ensure that this is not a one-off approach, but one that continues throughout the process.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Roche: I want to make progress.
  Mr. Steen: I think that the Minister is making excellent progress and I hope that my question will help.
  My concern with the Bill is about local democracy. On smaller district councils, the cabinet system has already excluded an awful lot of councillors. I fear that the Bill will alienate councillors and separate them from officials. Officials will get much more power and become more involved in planning decisions at the expense of local democracy and the councillors. Will the Minister confirm that that is not the case?
  Mrs. Roche: It is not the case. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and he makes a valid point, but let me try to reassure him. The Bill does not stipulate what decisions must be taken by officials or councillors. The hon. Gentleman is understandably confused about best practice targets, whereby routine and uncontroversial planning decisions can be taken by skilled planning officials, freeing councillors to deal with important matters such as controversial planning decisions, of which there are many in our constituencies.
  Mr. Graham Brady: In my constituency, councillors of all parties and the public
  734
  believe that the planning process does not reflect their concerns and needs. Councillors feel that they cannot throw out applications, typically those for building high-value flats, because the planning rules do not give them grounds to do that even though the local infrastructure is significantly overloaded. Can the Minister give any hope that the Bill will help with that?
  Mrs. Roche: I understand the concern, which applies in areas such as mine. Clearly, officials understand the planning system and the guidance. It is therefore important that the messages from our discussions of the planning process in the past year stress the importance of continuing education for councillors so that they have confidence that they are making the right decisions. [Interruption.] Before the hon. Gentleman gets to his feet again, I believe that some officials do not always have confidence in their decisions. Sometimes the guidance is interpreted differently and consequently different decisions are made. That is why it is important to spread best practice.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister agree that if the new system is to be successful, local people must feel that they own it? Although clause 17 provides for some community involvement, there is no provision for such involvement in drawing up the regional spatial strategies that will inform the contents of the local development documents. Community involvement is thus circumvented.
  Mrs. Roche: The Secretary of State must give approval, and would want to ensure that decisions took account of all relevant matters. There is a distinction between the regional spatial strategy, which is a strategic document, and the local development framework, which covers what happens on the ground in a practical way.
  The Bill simplifies the plan-led process by abolishing the middle tier of planning that exists in some areas. The new system will have two linked levels of planning: regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks. The latter will consist of a set of local development documents, which each authority will be required to prepare. Together, the documents will replace local plans and unitary development plans. They will set out development proposals and have a clear map so that everyone knows what goes where.
  Each authority will prepare a local development scheme, which will list the local development documents.
  Mr. Clive Betts: I welcome the Government's change of heart to require local authorities to produce a plan for their areas. That will provide much greater certainty for prospective developers, and people who live in a community and want to know what will happen to the land next door. It is a welcome change for which I thank my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Roche: I should probably thank my hon. Friend, who was a key advocate of that change. I understand his reasons completely. People were anxious to ensure a clear map and the ability to understand what is happening in an area. Maps will be introduced in secondary legislation. Again, I thank him for his contribution.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Roche: I must make some progress.
  Counties will be consultees on regional plans and continue to be responsible for transport, waste and minerals plans. Regions can use them as agents on sub-regional planning, and, when agreed, the Bill will enable counties to work with districts on local plans. As I said previously, the role of parishes is unchanged. Greater emphasis will be placed on local community participation. Local planning authorities will have to prepare statements of community involvement, which will set out how they will consult local communities on devising local development documents and significant planning applications.
  The Bill provides for making grants. Under those provisions, we shall make grants to organisations such as Planning Aid. That will allow them to develop a greater role in targeting communities that traditionally do not get involved in the planning system, especially groups in deprived areas or those representing the socially excluded. I emphasise the importance of those provisions; we all know Planning Aid's valuable contribution.
  Alan Simpson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Roche: No, I must make some progress.
  The Bill will introduce a statutory purpose for planning. We want a planning system that supports and promotes sustainable development. The Bill imposes a duty on those with plan-making functions under parts 1 and 2 to exercise them with a view to contributing to achieving sustainable development.
  Sustainable development does not mean no development, but sustaining high, stable economic growth and employment, social progress, effective protection of the environment and prudent use of resources. The Bill also grants new powers for local planning authorities to introduce local permitted development rights in local development orders.
  Mr. Steen: Now that the Minister has made some progress, will she give way?
  Mrs. Roche: No, I must make a little more. I have an eye to the time, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Developers will be able to request a statement of development principles. The Bill contains new provisions to speed up the planning process for applicants and introduces greater clarity. It will also stamp out abuses of the system by preventing repeat and twin-track applications.
  736
  The Bill reduces the time required for planning permission from five to three years and abolishes automatic renewal. Developers will therefore no longer be able to sit on planning permission for years without starting work. Many hon. Members are genuinely worried about that.
  As I said earlier, the onus is not only on local authorities; we are serious about improving the planning system
  Peter Bradley: I heartily welcome my hon. Friend's comments about developers sitting on planning consents. However, what about developers who put down foundations and thus perpetually prolong planning permission, at great expense to local communities, which would like developments to be demolished or completed?
  Mrs. Roche: I understand my hon. Friend's point. That is the precise reason for the way in which the Bill is drafted.
  Mr. Steen: I am grateful for the Minister's generosity. Sustainable development has become a buzzword for the Liberal Democrats. Whenever they are asked a question, they reply, "sustainable development." Does the Minister realise that building programmes in many areas happen so fast and are so great that the infrastructure cannot cope with the new demands on it? Does the Bill define sustainable development so as to prevent building in constituencies such as mine, where the current infrastructure means that the rural area cannot sustain the number of people who move in?
  Mrs. Roche: Much as I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, I would not give the phrase "sustainable development" to one party. We would all buy into the concept because it is about getting the balance right in the planning process. Of course, business would like a speedier process, but it is right for local communities to have a direct say, and for their voices to be heard. If I may seek to reassure him, that is why the Bill seeks to strike such a balance.
  The Bill will speed up the processing of major infrastructure projects by introducing new inquiry rules to allow inspectors to make better use of inquiry time while ensuring that everyone can adequately express their views and by putting in place new procedures to allow a team of inspectors to operate an inquiry.
  Mr. Love: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Roche: Yes, for the final time.
  Mr. Love: I give my hon. Friend extra thanks for giving way on this point. Concern has been expressed that many groups that want to make representations to inquiries form new groups to make more representations, thus further slowing the process. Has she taken that into account in trying to limit the time that inquiries take?
  Mrs. Roche: Again, the question is one of balance. The consultation on the Green Paper involved a great deal of consideration of major infrastructure projects.

  737
  Of course everybody wants to hear from the local community and, in particular, local community groups, but such things cannot be allowed to drag on for ever and ever when much-needed projects are being considered. The new procedures will allow the team of inspectors in, which strikes the right balance.
  The Bill will also introduce provisions to set up business planning zones, which will be planned in the regional strategic interest, but designated by individual local authorities. They will be areas in which high-quality development is fast-tracked to help to create jobs where they are needed most. The zones will not be a free-for-all, but will adhere to strict approval criteria set out in guidance and be subject to an environmental impact assessment.
  The Bill will introduce a duty for statutory consultees to respond to a consultation request within a specified time and report on their performance in meeting their targets. It will also reform the development plan system in Wales, where a single-tier local government system and a uniform pattern of unitary development plans were introduced by the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
  The basic pattern of development plans in Wales is to be retained. Local development plans will be simpler and more concise than unitary development plans. Procedures will be simplified and community participation improved. Provision is also made for the National Assembly for Wales to prepare and publish a national spatial plan for Wales.
  Where it is necessary to use compulsory purchase to assemble land for regeneration and large-scale projects, the implementation of proposals in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 18 July should help to speed the process. We intend to achieve that by making the basis on which local authorities can exercise their powers clearer and more positive while also improving compensation by introducing additional loss payments.
  The Bill sets out a reformed planning system for the 21st century that will help us to live in sustainable communities; a reformed system that will be faster and fairer; and a reformed system that will help us to meet the challenges of the future, deal with the problems of the present and protect the heritage of the past. I commend it to the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I beg to move,
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill because it fails to set out a planning framework; it introduces the concept of regional spatial strategies, taking power away from local authorities, particularly county councils; it creates an unclear mechanism of local development documents, principles, frameworks and strategies; it fails adequately to specify how the public will be involved in the consultation on these documents; it provides for the concept of the correction of errors, which would encourage poor decision-
  738
  making; it abolishes outline planning permission, thus failing to provide applicants for planning permission with certainty; it fails to clarify the position on planning gains and obligations; and it does not adequately deal with the public expenditure implications of the revised compensation payments.
  It is always a great pleasure to follow the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women, who dealt with the House most courteously. At times, I felt as though we were already in Committee, such was her willingness to give way and to answer technical points. However, I have to say that her description of the Bill is not one that I recognise. I have read it and the explanatory notes.
  Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman has read the wrong Bill.
  Mr. Pickles: Almost certainly I did. I read the Bill that is before the House, not the one that the Minister talked about.
  This could have been a great Bill that we would all be proud of and that addressed the stress in the system. It could have achieved quicker, more devolved local decisions. Instead of addressing the problems, the Government have chosen to politicise the planning process by dragging in a more remote regional authority, thereby breaking the link with decisions made by local people, which have been such an important feature of the past 50 years.
  At one time, I thought that we were being treated to the Christmas carol concert of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and that we were being given a turn—a parody of a Bill whereby a party with a large majority could push any measure through the Chamber without the Chamber objecting. If that were the case, the Bill would come awfully close to being such a measure. Despite what the Government wish, most areas of the country will not vote for a regional assembly, so deciding to build a planning system around a nonexistent assembly seems perverse to me.
  To build a planning system in the certain knowledge that the south-east of England—this country's economic motor—will not have an elected assembly seems both wilful and contemptuous of local opinion. The planning system relies on three basic principles: the speed at which decisions are made, the quality of those decisions, and public acceptance of the decision-making process. In that process, there is often a tension between speed and the other two principles. That is where the problem lies.
  The Bill's tone is overwhelmingly centralising. It will take power from local people, stifle local democracy and dramatically increase the power of the Secretary of State. The Government set out on this process of reforming the planning system with the declared aim of making it quicker and less bureaucratic, increasing certainty and enhancing business and public involvement.
  Mr. Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: Of course. It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Betts: Perhaps we are both reading slightly different Bills. The hon. Gentleman talks about centralisation, but has he read the sections on community involvement and the requirements on planning authorities to produce that? Does he not welcome them?
  Mr. Pickles: I shall come to that. I am not saying that we cannot amend the Bill in Committee or that it cannot be improved, but I do have to say that the hon. Gentleman, perhaps due to his experience in Sheffield, is looking at the legislation through rose-coloured spectacles. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman, like me, is getting on in years and has to use glasses for reading. We congratulate him on his important victory—the Government are to allow local authorities to put together some plans, which is a very good thing—but he should not let that cloud his judgment on the rest of the Bill.
  Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that "community" has become another buzz word? If it means anything, it tends to be the local authority such as the parish, district or town council, but it does not mean the whole community. There is no way of consulting the community. Does he agree that the problem with the Bill and constantly harping on about the community is that there is no vehicle for consulting the community? It is lovely to say, "The community is going to be consulted." We all feel much more comfortable when we hear that, but it will not happen.
  Mr. Pickles: I am sure that we can all agree that any consultation of the community must be sustainable. To answer my hon. Friend, part of the problem and the real trick for achieving success lies in getting involved in the strategic stage of the consultation process. So often, as he will recognise, consultation takes place in planning and other authorities when the process has been decided; it allows those who were involved to be told that they have done a marvellous job. The real trick of making a consultation work, if it can be made to work, is to get in at a strategic stage. That will be difficult to achieve, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, with all his experience, recognises that.
  The Government set out to reform the planning system with the declared aim of making the process quicker and less bureaucratic, thus increasing certainty and enhancing business and public involvement. The explanatory notes declare that the measures in the Bill are broadly deregulatory and will simplify the planning process. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bill fails to achieve what it sets out to do. It imposes further regulation, greatly complicates the planning system and is likely to slow down the planning process rather than speed it up.
  Mr. Paul Truswell: The hon. Gentleman talks about the speed of the planning process. Does he accept that the unitary development planning process that was introduced by the previous Conservative Government took almost 10 years to unfold in Leeds? How can he possibly stand there and criticise the present
  740
  Government for trying to speed up the process when the system that the Conservative Government introduced was so sadly lacking?
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman must understand that these criticisms are made in the context of a loving relationship.
  David Davis: We never knew.
  Mr. Pickles: It is a side of me that my right hon. Friend has never noticed.
  I am merely trying to improve the process, and I shall show how the Bill will slow it down. The most important aspect is that it will remove the democratic checks and balances from the planning mechanism, downgrade the role of local people and drastically enhance the power of Whitehall and the Secretary of State.
  An intelligent, thoughtful planning process is likely to help to resolve the crisis in affordable housing, and increase the amount of house building on brownfield sites.
  Peter Bradley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has referred to affordable housing. What increase in the availability of affordable housing, especially in rural communities, would be achieved by the extension of the right to buy to housing association properties, as championed by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)?
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to take part in our consultation exercise. He will have seen that we propose a clear exemption for rural authorities with populations of 3,000. I see no problem. No doubt he will now feel ready to endorse the right to buy to ensure that people have a right to own their own houses. That seems to me to be of considerable importance.
  It is worth remembering that, according to last year's Green Paper, 90 per cent. of planning applications are eventually accepted. Therefore, we are dealing with the controversy that surrounds 10 per cent. of applications. The Bill can only properly be described as an opportunity lost. It is not aimed at achieving a balanced planning system, but rather at fitting in with the Government's regionalist agenda. It was interesting that the Minister referred to that at the beginning of her speech. A sizeable portion of the Bill is aimed at steamrollering the English regions into a regional decision-making process, whether the region likes it or not.
  The introduction of regional spatial strategies in the Bill is the clearest indication yet of the Government's desire to bypass county councils and other longstanding democratic bodies in favour of their regionalist pipedream. Regional spatial strategies remove a key democratic input into the planning process. The Bill severely erodes democratic control over future planning developments. It is difficult to understand why the Government insist on a planning mechanism that provides no direct democratic means for people to express their concerns over planning decisions that affect their county or region. The proposed system lacks accountability and openness. Surely that will have only

  741
  one result: increased public disenchantment with the planning system and a diminution of the legitimacy of planning. That can only mean poorer, more unpopular decisions at the end of the process.
  The Government see regional assemblies as the solution to the democratic gap in the planning Bill. That is highly presumptuous. The Government promised to give the people, via referendums, a say on whether or not they have an assembly, yet they impose a planning Bill that removes democratic accountability in the planning system unless people say yes in a referendum.
  If people do not vote for regional assemblies, whom will the Secretary of State designate for planning purposes? That is not clear in the Bill. Will it be the regional development agencies, whose performance varies enormously around the country, the Government offices under the control of unelected officials, or chambers, which are almost non-existent in certain areas? It would be helpful if the Minister who replies to the debate could make that clear.
  Mr. Drew: Labour Members may be confused. For good or ill, regional planning conferences have long had a role in the planning process. There may have been problems, because they could be in conflict with the counties or the districts. What is the hon. Gentleman's view on the future of regional planning conferences? He seems to be against the Government's regional drift. Does he think that regional planning conferences could be got rid of?
  Mr. Pickles: Regional planning conferences do not exist in every part of the country. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the engine for those conferences is the county council block. The county councils will be diminished by this process, and all their experience will disappear. The regional planning conferences are sometimes too restrictive. They prevent planning on matters in which adjoining authorities have a mutual interest but which do not fit into a particular structure in the region.
  It is our contention that the Bill is anti-democratic, and that the counties, rather than arbitrary regions, are a better level at which to make strategic and structural planning decisions. County councils have a clearer view of the real needs of their local area, and their grasp of the important strategic detail is superior to that of large-scale regional authorities. County councils allow for accountability and represent an area with which local people can readily identify. They also have a longstanding pool of expertise in planning and local knowledge, which will be squandered and frittered away by this legislation.
  Despite that, the role of county councils under the new arrangements is unclear. I heard what the Minister said, but it is unclear. Although county councils will still have control over minerals, waste, development and transport, according to the explanatory notes they will only be able to participate in the drawing up of local development plans. It is not clear how that is to be achieved and what their responsibility will be. I hope that it will be made clear in the Minister's winding-up speech, and if not, in Committee.
  742
  Are the Government prepared to make it clear whether and how county councils will be involved in the process, especially in the drawing up of local development plans? How can they be drawn up without properly considered waste, minerals and transport strategies?
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying, almost in the same breath, that county councils are both local community authorities and strategic, semi-regional authorities. I am not sure that he can have it both ways. Which one does he plump for?
  Mr. Pickles: That is their strength, and it is why they are a good unit. The hon. Gentleman makes my point. County councils represent real people in real communities. They can link up if there is commonality of interest. That is why what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are seeking to do is such a travesty. The Bill rips power away from local people and diminishes accountability.
  Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: Why the heck not? Let us go for it.
  Mr. Love: I have been at meetings when members of the previous Conservative Government have confirmed that they seriously considered the abolition of the planning powers of county councils. Would the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that?
  Mr. Pickles: I can certainly say that I have never been in the same room as the hon. Gentleman when such views were expressed.
  The Secretary of State is to be given virtual carte blanche to do as he wishes—he becomes a grand vizier of planning law. The tone of the Bill is set in part 1, which deals with regional functions. The Secretary of State will have enormous powers. Regional planning guidance issued by him forms part of the regional spatial strategy. The system effectively gives him prescriptive power of central control. He can control a regional spatial strategy that in turn controls a local development plan, which must comply with the regional plan. He even has powers to intervene in the creation of a local development scheme, and to revoke it altogether. He has powers to direct a local authority to withdraw, or to revise, its local development plan. He also has powers to order local authorities, against their wishes, to produce joint local development plans. Under the proposals for simplified planning zones and business improvement zones in the Local Government Bill, he can dictate policy against the wishes of local people.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under the current planning system bequeathed to us by the previous Conservative Government, the Secretary of State has huge powers to call in almost any aspect—if not every aspect—of planning applications. Is it now Conservative policy to reverse that, and to reduce the powers of the Secretary of State within the planning system?
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the planning system has been in existence in a proper, recognisable form for 50 years. As recently as five years ago, the relevant standard legal textbooks consisted of three volumes, but because of the continuous process of issuing new directives, there are now some 10 volumes. There is of course a point in the Secretary of State's being involved, but a balance must be struck between local communities and power at the centre. All that we are seeking to do is to redress that balance. We are trying not to remove the Secretary of State from the process, but to return to a proper balance. After all, the current planning system is part of the post-war consensus whereby people had trust in the system. My concern is that if we give too much power to the Secretary of State, people will lose confidence in the system.
  The proposals for major infrastructure projects, which were expanded on in a statutory instrument earlier this year, give the Secretary of State enormous powers to set timetables for inquiries, to reject evidence and to appoint inspectors. One aim of the planning process review was to enhance the involvement of local people, but this Bill fails to achieve that. Instead, it raises the powers of the Secretary of State by several notches. The planning system will become overwhelmingly top-down. The Secretary of State will have an omnipresent role in the planning process.
  This legislation also clearly fails in its declared aim of speeding up and simplifying the planning system. In fact, the Government may actually have achieved the impossible by making this highly bureaucratic system a smidgen more bureaucratic. Let us consider the example of the document on local development, which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) mentioned earlier. The Bill is in a huge muddle about the overlap between a local development framework and a local development plan. Added to this confusion is the remarkable cocktail of local development orders, local development principles and provision for the Secretary of State to set fees and charges for a range of planning functions. The result can only be a more complex and expensive planning system, with several more layers and tiers than existed before the Bill came into being.
  The Government may come eternally to regret their explanation of clause 37, which deals with the development plan. The explanatory notes state:
  "Clause 37 defines the development plan by reference to the simplified hierarchy of plans and documents created by this Bill."
  This is anything but a simplified system. The Minister mentioned Wales at the end of her speech, but in Wales there is no question of tiers. A much more simplified and less complicated system exists there in respect of documentation, and I hope that we will be offered an explanation of why what is good enough for Wales is not good enough for England.
  This confusion and bureaucracy expands beyond local development plans and infects the rest of the Bill. Under the terms of clause 38, in drawing up the regional spatial strategy and local development plans a sustainable development plan must be drawn up in parallel. That is in addition to the homelessness plan that local authorities are obliged to produce under the Bill on homelessness, and to the housing plan contained in the Local Government Bill. Is it not possible that local
  744
  authorities could simply collapse under the burden of these well-meaning but bureaucratic plans? How will this great bucket of plans complement each other and mesh together? The Bill totally fails in its desire to increase certainty in planning for business.
  Statements of development principles are proposed as a replacement for outline planning permission, but the latter is a far stronger legal entity than the proposed new system. Companies often use the certainty provided by outline planning permission to raise funds for ventures, and to plan for the medium or long term. This legal certainty will be lost under the proposed changes, causing delay and perhaps making planning, finance raising and job creation more difficult for business. It is hard to see what statements of development principles add to the planning process, other than providing yet another target for judicial review. They do not provide a developer with a proper equivalent to, or any promise of, planning permission. The Green Paper seemed to suggest that the new system would run in tandem with the old outline planning permission, so that any major problems could be ironed out, but there is no mention of that in the Bill. Can the Minister clarify the transitional arrangements?
  Because the Minister concerned is the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), and because it is getting close to Christmas, I have tried to find an aspect of the Bill about which I could say something nice. I hit upon the idea of compulsory purchase, but unfortunately part 7, which deals with that, is not as welcome as it might first appear. We welcome compensation for landowners whose land is acquired, but the basic loss payment will be subject to a maximum amount, and in July the Deputy Prime Minister stated that property owners will be paid "hope value" for any possible planning gain. As a result, owners of some larger properties will actually be paid less than they are entitled to. Far from being more generous, the Bill is actually confiscatory. That is especially evident when we consider that the payment of compensation to property owners could take up to seven years. There is a great deal of justified complaint that current compulsory purchase claims take years to be settled.
  Mr. Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: In a moment.
  An interesting feature of this Bill is what is not included in it. No mention is made of third party right of appeal. Is the Minister prepared to rethink this omission, particularly in circumstances where a local authority gives planning permission for its own land? I have talked about the three principles involved, and the issue is one of acceptability. For a local authority to grant itself permission, and for those affected to have no redress, looks wrong and feels wrong.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I hope that I can catch the hon. Gentleman on clause 43, on which the Minister did not amplify sufficiently. On omissions, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and the official record will show tomorrow that neither the Minister nor—until now—the hon. Gentleman has referred to planning enforcement. One of the big problems is that, unless dilatory local authorities can pursue planning

  745
  enforcement with vigour—in fact, they are tardy—all this great machinery will come to nought, particularly for the small person, whose visual and aural amenity will be trespassed by selfish people who ignore planning law, and who are not chased by local authorities.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine share a border, and although we do not represent the same authorities, we share some of the same problems. Sometimes, because we say a certain thing, we think that action has been taken and the matter has been dealt with. The extra £350 million has been welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), but planning officers are needed to put that money to use. Local authority planning departments are grossly overstaffed. Planning officers who are properly trained soon find themselves in the private sector. Enforcement actions do not take place because local authorities are being squeezed by the Government and decide to put their money somewhere else. Often, frustrated constituents tell me that nothing has happened even though the local authority was supposed to take enforcement action. Even when such actions are taken, they can be appealed. The Bill could have dealt with that problem and speeded up the enforcement process.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I think that I agree with the hon. Gentleman about third party right of appeal, although he needs to clarify the little that he said. I also agree with him about enforcement, but he said that the Government's proposed limit on compulsory purchase could be too low. Does he not realise that any limit that was even a little higher would make many regeneration projects prohibitively expensive?
  Mr. Pickles: I shall answer that point in a second, but first I must apologise to the House. In my gross excitement about planning, I may have suggested that local authority planning departments were overstaffed. In fact, I know that I did, as my boss, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), has just ticked me off. What I meant to say—what was in the Pickles mind—was that planning offices were understaffed. I apologise if I have inadvertently misled hon. Members about the state of local authorities which, I repeat, are understaffed.
  Andrew Mackinlay: Especially when it comes to enforcement officers.
  Mr. Pickles: As the hon. Gentleman says, especially when it comes to enforcement officers.
  One problem with the compulsory purchase process is the long time spent haggling over prices. No one suggests that people should be paid above the market price, but the Bill makes it possible for them to be paid less than that price. If we are to learn from the way in which compulsory purchase operates elsewhere, we must be able to pick up how that problem is dealt with.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned major infrastructure projects. I understand that he has strong feelings about what happened at Heathrow. It is important that the Government clearly
  746
  indicate whether they support major infrastructure projects. A big test will be coming soon, in respect of the decisions about extra runways in the south-east.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I hope that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who will reply to the debate, will make matters clearer. The guidance notes do not make it clear that there will be a planning inquiry in the traditional form when an inspector is appointed under clause 43. It might be implicit, but that provision is not made explicit in either the Bill or the accompanying explanatory notes. I want to safeguard the rights of the individual—the cussed, awkward, bloody-minded individual. It was people like that who fought the big battalions, such as the British Airports Authority, during the Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry, and they will wish to do the same again. We need an undertaking that they will not be squeezed out, and that there will always be a proper inquiry in connection with clause 43.
  Mr. Pickles: My understanding is that the Secretary of State will direct the procedure. However, I am sure that the Under-Secretary will answer that point when he replies to the debate.
  I have forgotten the name of the inspector in the terminal 5 inquiry, for which I apologise, but I have read his evidence to the Select Committee. I thought that the reasons given for the delay were telling. It was not secured by bloody-minded individuals so much as caused by the system. The lack of direction caused delays for all sorts of reasons.
  Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the proximity of Christmas. He stated that local authorities' planning departments were understaffed, so will he confirm, in the spirit of goodwill, that he favours the appointment of large numbers of additional officers? Is that official Opposition policy? Does he have information to offer the House about the costing that the policy wonks will no doubt have done on the policy?
  Mr. Pickles: I have written to Santa Claus, but sadly I did not ask for any additional planning officers. My substantive point is that remuneration levels for appropriately qualified people in the private sector are high, and that that adds to the difficulties faced by local authority planning departments. A person qualified in town and country planning is likely to make significantly more money in the private sector than in the local authority sector. However, I am sure that the Government Whips will be awfully pleased with that question. The hon. Gentleman may get a prize after Christmas.
  Peter Bradley rose—
  Mr. Steen rose—
  Mr. Pickles: The time has come for us to move on.
  Mr. Steen: I am most grateful for that. I know when my time has come, and I want to ask my hon. Friend about compensation. Some other European countries have been able to make speedy progress with major infrastructure projects because they are willing to pay

  747
  compensation at above market values. I disagree with my hon. Friend in that I believe that paying compensation at above the market value would speed up major infrastructure projects, as they would not be delayed by people haggling over small sums. Does he agree that that is an attractive approach that the Opposition should consider carefully?
  Mr. Pickles: There is some truth in what my hon. Friend says. We should aim to ensure that the normal, generous market value is paid, but my point is that there should be no artificial ceiling that could prevent the process from going forward.
  This Bill is a wasted opportunity, and that is tragic. The UK needs a modern and effective planning system so that it can compete in the 21st century. The Government are right that the planning system needs fundamental reform, but the proposed system is too slow, uncertain and bureaucratic. It does not allow enough input from business or the public.
  The proposed changes will, if anything, make matters worse. The new system is more complex and top-down than what it replaces, and it offers less room for public participation. We cannot afford to get this reform wrong. Mistakes now could have damaging consequences for this country for years to come. The reforms need to be thoughtful, balanced and intelligent. They should increase the legitimacy of the planning process and enhance its effectiveness. The Bill clearly fails to do that.
  The Minister, when she opened the debate, used her Department's favourite buzz words when she said that the Bill would be a "step change" for planning. I agree: the Bill does represent a significant step change for planning—it is a step change towards chaos and muddle, and it is a step change backwards. I urge the Government to reconsider the Bill.
  6.39 pm
  Andrew Bennett: I suspect that when the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) reads his speech, he will conclude that much more of it should have taken the form of footnotes rather than actually being delivered. He complained, for instance, that my hon. Friend the Minister had not made much reference to the Bill, but he did not seem to refer to it much himself. Worse, he did not seem to recognise the country in which I think we live—a country in which regional effort is becoming important.
  When the Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee took evidence yesterday, we discussed land in Warrington. The use of that land, for housing or for industrial development, has a direct effect on regeneration in Liverpool and east Manchester. Unless we are prepared to accept that there is now a regional dimension in this country, we will find ourselves in real difficulty. In the case of an awful lot of planning issues, we must look at the region.
  The best part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was, in fact, his reference to an earlier intervention. We should pay tribute to the 1945 Labour Government who established the town and country planning system, which is one of the jewels in our crown. For more than
  748
  50 years it worked pretty well, although there was a slight hiccup when Nicholas Ridley wanted to tear it all up. That led to some of the worst out-of-town planning, and one or two other bits went wrong. Nevertheless, we need only look at national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and historic towns to see that our planning system has protected them from developments that might have ruined them—although they might also have made someone a quick short-term profit.
  The planning system also protects many people who might otherwise have to live close to areas that are unattractive, whether because of local industry or because of leisure activities. We should remind people that it has served the country well. We should also remind them that we live on a small island with a large population, where difficult planning decisions will always have to be made.
  One thing that worries me about the Bill is that it results from a myth. Unfortunately, when Lord Falconer joined the Department 15 months ago, he almost swallowed that myth hook, line and sinker. The myth, produced particularly by the Confederation of British Industry, is that our planning system makes us uncompetitive. That is nonsense. Lord Falconer should have learnt a lesson that many Ministers need to learn. Departments that can do things can often do them without legislation; it is those who cannot run their own Departments who say, "A Bill will enable us to put off the delivery of results until we have got the legislation through the House." It is to the credit of the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Rooker and other Ministers that they listened to criticism at the time of the Green Paper, and have modified the Bill significantly. Moreover, the Department has recognised that many improvements in planning can be brought about through resources and administration rather than a big change in the legislation.
  Dr. John Pugh: Is the hon. Gentleman categorically disagreeing with the Minister, who said that a step change was required and would be secured? He just said that no big change was needed.
  Andrew Bennett: I do not mind if we claim that it is a step change if that makes people behave in a slightly different way, but I firmly believe that the legislation is not all that necessary. What is important is the administrative change that has been promised. I do not think that we should complain that the Government have backed away from their Green Paper and come up with a much more realistic approach; indeed, they should be given credit for that. We should be proud of the fact that they published a Green Paper and then listened to the responses, including those of the Select Committee. I think that as a result we have better legislation, and I hope that better administrative action from the Department will follow.
  Let me deal briefly with the myth about the planning system. When the Select Committee was considering the Green Paper, the director general of the CBI told us very firmly that, according to survey after survey, the planning system was destroying our competitiveness. When we asked for evidence, he could not provide it. During this morning's sitting, the best another CBI representative could do was tell us that the CBI had asked MORI to conduct a further survey, which had

  749
  shown that the planning system was a problem. When we asked how important the problem was, we were told that it ranked 13th out of 15.
  Let us be clear about this. Our planning system does not limit productivity. For one thing, many companies never use it; levels of investment are much more important to them. The planning system does not make a huge difference to our effectiveness.
  I think that the culture change, rather than the step change, is important. We need to ensure that planning departments are enablers rather than disablers—that they work hard, from the start of a planning application or, indeed, before the application is made—to ensure that the proposal is in the interests of both developer and local community. That comes down to the question of resources. When we had an exchange in the Select Committee about whether the extra money would be ring-fenced, I thought Lord Rooker was pretty good: he said that it would not be ring-fenced, but that he could guarantee that it would be spent on planning. If that can be achieved, full marks.
  There are some problems, however. It is important for the money to be spent, but it can be spent only if there are people with the necessary skills. Sadly we have run down the number of planners in the country, and we have also run down respect for them. I hope that during the Bill's passage the Government will tell us more about how we are to secure more planners. To an extent, we must consider the way in which geography is taught in schools and the fact that some pupils are pushed into making a choice at 15. Far more should be encouraged to continue with geography, which can enable them subsequently to work in the earth sciences or in planning departments. I fear that, in that regard, the national curriculum is too prescriptive.
  Mr. Llwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman know of research recently carried out in Scotland? I think that it is something to do with Edinburgh university. When all the planning students in a certain year were asked about their hopes, not one said that he or she hoped to work in a planning department.
  Andrew Bennett: That is worrying. We need to give planning back its status. Nowadays everyone criticises planners rather than recognising their important role.
  We need more resources and we need more planners, but it is also important for the planners to think in terms of enabling. The Select Committee took evidence from the City of London corporation, which is pretty well resourced, about its attempts to get its planners to talk to developers at an early stage and show them how they can deal with the regulations and the planning process. Many more local authorities should do that, especially when it comes to building control. Some of the criticism of the planning system is not about the allocation of particular sites, but about the nitty-gritty: how can extractor fans be installed so that they do not disturb local people, for instance, and how can it be ensured that in summer, when doors are left open, people on an estate do not suffer from the noise?
  Mr. Drew: When people try to find out what decisions are being made, they are often frustrated by the absence of contemporaneous reports of meetings with
  750
  developers. That means that people requiring information receive it only when a development is under way.
  Andrew Bennett: May I suggest that my hon. Friend looks at the evidence that we took this morning, particularly the Minister's response on this issue about how far one can get greater transparency at the beginning of the process? To a certain extent, the Minister understood the problem, and was coming up with part of the solution.
  Alan Simpson: In relation to his point about enhancing the role of planning officers and the authority that they carry with them, has my hon. Friend's Committee considered the points being made by the police? They are talking about not just where one puts the fans, but the role of planning officers in designing out crime. The point has been made that the Bill would be strengthened if planning processors were required to address section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which the Government introduced and which the police are saying has made an enormous difference to communities and to commercial interests in designing out the costs of crime at an early stage in the planning process.
  Andrew Bennett: I accept that point. It is a question of bringing to bear on the planning process all the resources of the local authority—the police, planners and others—so that we get good developments that do not create problems but set out to solve them.
  I have talked about the problems of training and I should like to press the Minister on compulsory purchase orders. The parts of the Bill dealing with CPOs are some of the most welcome. Part of the problem is that local authorities got out of the habit of using CPOs and now find them cumbersome. Some of those who worked for local authorities during the 1960s and knocked out a CPO almost every day would say that the legislation has not changed much, but that lack of familiarity is the problem. The problem that has been put to me by local authorities is that, often, one does not want to have to go right through the CPO process. They want to persuade people to settle so that they can buy them out without having to go through that process. The problem for some local authorities is that they put together a back-to-back deal so that the land is immediately passed on to a developer. If local authorities hold the land for only 24 hours, they can stand the interest charges, but if they buy six or nine months in advance of the CPO, they have a problem with the financing. I hope that we will look at the law relating to CPOs and at some of the issues about financing.
  In the Select Committee this morning, the Minister gave us the valuable assurance that the regulations will be available before the Bill goes into Committee. That will make scrutiny much easier. I hope that at some point the Minister will explain the transition. One of my reservations about having legislation involves the transition. The present system can be cumbersome, but people understand it, and in three or four years we will have the new system that people will have got used to.

  751
  Between those stages there is the transition and we do not want a hiatus so that obtaining planning permission is more difficult during the next couple of years.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for giving way. I do not agree with everything that he has said, but his speech has been thoughtful and well considered and he does seem to be asking for greater certainty in the planning system. Will he comment on clause 40, which abolishes outline planning permission and introduces a statement of development principles instead? That would be a far less certain procedure and would not give businesses the ability to plan their developments with certainty.
  Andrew Bennett: One cannot say categorically yes or no to that. We will have to see how things evolve. That is very much in the area of guidance. If the Government produce clear guidance, such problems may be solved.
  I was about to give a firm thank you from my constituents to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for turning down the development at Audenshaw, Waterside park, formerly Kingswater park. Having a business park beside the motorway would encourage people to drive around the motorway to work. I also thank him for his decision to turn down the proposal for a large IKEA store in Stockport, which would generate traffic. We should use the planning system to reduce the need for travel. Our society is far too fragmented and people are encouraged to do a great deal of travelling. For most people, spending time in a traffic jam on a motorway is not attractive.
  It is important that the planning system works quickly. I hope that the Government will guarantee to set an example from the top and that Ministers will reach decisions quickly, setting that example for local authorities and the planning system. We should remember that our planning system was a jewel in the crown and, with this legislation, we should ensure that it continues to sparkle.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: My hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) may not agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) about IKEA, but I congratulate him on his speech and on his Select Committee's report on the planning Green Paper. I believe that the report influenced the Government's thinking and was the main factor in encouraging them to change their mind about some of the Green Paper's more distasteful aspects, such as its proposals on national planning decisions for major infrastructure projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) served on the Select Committee and has told me about the hon. Gentleman's good leadership.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman about staff in planning departments. Staffing is probably the major weakness of the planning system, and he was right to dwell on it. I am sure that he is aware that undergraduate courses on planning are increasingly unpopular. The Government must work to reverse that
  752
  decline. I am sure that he is aware of some research that was conducted by the Department that used to have responsibility for planning, which showed that, on average, planning departments across the country were short of four or five staff. That represents a huge national shortage. The research also dealt with issues such as the failure of local authorities to enforce some aspects of the planning system, which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) mentioned. We need those staff so that such work can be done. The Government's announcement last July of £350 million was a welcome first step towards rectifying the core problem.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: As I understood the Minister, she said that the money would not be ring-fenced. The memorandum says that it will go to local planning authorities that manage to deliver an efficient planning service, but surely it is a question of the chicken and the egg. Local planning authorities need part of that extra allocation to improve their performance, and, if they succeed, by all means, give them bonuses.
  Mr. Davey: I agree about the chicken and egg, but I do not agree about ring-fencing. There is too much ring-fencing in local government finance and the Government are right to resist that temptation.
  Only the Minister will realise what a great thrill it is for me to speak on Second Reading of this Bill. I last debated with her when she was a Treasury Minister dealing with a Finance Bill. It is a particular pleasure for me to debate planning with her.
  Mr. Pickles: What a smooth talking young lad.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I am a smooth talker, but I will let the Minister make that decision.
  During the run-up to the Bill, the Government's thinking on planning has undergone many changes. At times, they appeared to be unsure about what they wanted to do about planning, and contradiction and confusion is reflected in the Bill. The Government talk about decentralising planning powers, but the proposed regional structures, which would give the Secretary of State extra powers, do not appear to decentralise a thing; if anything, they will cement the centralisation of the existing system.
  The explanatory notes and all the rhetoric before the debate suggested that the Bill would speed up the planning system, but many aspects of the local development plans, to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) referred and which will doubtless be debated not only tonight but in Committee, will slow up the system and make it far more inefficient.
  Those failures spring from the Government's lack of vision on planning. Sometimes, the Government are almost apologetic about the planning system, and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish came close to suggesting as much. We should be proud of our planning system;it has a great role. It was the 1909 Liberal Government who first legislated for a planning system—an important move to ensure that development produced benefits for society. After the second world war, the

  753
  Labour Government introduced important planning legislation, which developed the system and bequeathed us our current procedures.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman studies his history carefully, he will find that Disraeli was the first to propose the establishment of a planning system and to set up slum clearance programmes.
  Mr. Davey: I do not really want to follow the hon. Gentleman into a historical debate; there is a big difference between slum clearance and actual planning policies.
  The problem is that the vision that the Labour Government showed in their Town and Country Planning Act 1947 is not reflected in the Bill. The present Government are torn between their new Labour instincts to suck up to business and the reality experienced by Ministers, who understand how the planning system works in their constituencies and the tension in reconciling community interests. The Government do not know how to deal with that dilemma, so they have tried to split the difference and this unsatisfactory Bill is the result.
  We welcome some aspects of the Bill, such as, its provisions that contain the germ of ideas that will give us a real vision for planning. It will be interesting to hear the Select Committee's views on such provisions. For example, clause 38 would make sustainable development a key test in planning decisions, which is welcome. However, although the Minister explained what she meant by "sustainable development", there is no such explanation in the Bill, and that could cause problems. The Government should have been braver and set out clearly what they meant by that welcome provision.
  Clause 17 provides for a statement of "community involvement". That, too, is welcome as far as it goes, but it is vague and I shall develop that point later in my speech.
  Andrew Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman is so worried about sustainable development, what definition would he table as an amendment?
  Mr. Davey: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Town and Country Planning Association has proposed an amendment that would give such a definition. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who will serve on the Standing Committee, may table it.
  We welcome other changes proposed in the Bill. There is already some agreement about compulsory purchase powers and about the extra flexibility in development controls. We especially welcome the proposals for Wales. As a result of the Bill, Wales will have a much better system than England, although we might ask whether the National Assembly for Wales should not already have the power to debate such legislation, rather than it being debated in this place. However, we shall let that point pass—at least Wales will get a better deal than England.
  Mr. Roger Williams: People in Wales welcome the Bill—although, as my hon. Friend pointed out, many of its regulation-making powers should have been devolved to the Assembly. The proposed spatial strategies will allow Wales to take a much more strategic approach to issues such as renewable energy and wind farm development.
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the Assembly will seize the opportunity to create a much better planning system in Wales.
  Our major problem with the Bill is the centralising tendency that underpins it. As has been pointed out, we already have a centralised system, although when I challenged the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar on that point he was not quite prepared to admit that it was the fault of previous Conservative Governments, who bequeathed us that system. However, the Labour Government have achieved what seemed almost impossible—they have made the system even more centralised. Instead of passing powers—such as those in the current transport and works framework—from Parliament down to regional planning bodies, or to the future regional assemblies, they have taken powers back from county councils, thus increasing centralization.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues states that the House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading
  "because it gives extra powers to unelected and unaccountable regional bodies".
  I thought that the Liberal party was all in favour of regionalism and regional bodies. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his party's policy?
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to do so. We believe in elected regional assemblies. When we have accountable, elected regional assemblies, that will be the right time to give them real planning powers.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: But we are debating the Bill now.
  Mr. Davey: My criticism of the Bill—if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument—is that it would give some planning powers to unelected regional planning bodies, which would, in effect, be quangos. We oppose that. To centralise is bad enough, but to centralise power in unelected, unaccountable bodies is unacceptable. That is one of our reasons for opposing the Bill.
  To be fair to the Government, we could say that the Bill and other measures, such as the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, are merely preparatory and that they precede regional devolution across England. We might be that generous if the Government were truly pushing ahead with regional devolution, but the caution and timidity with which they are approaching that key constitutional change mean that we cannot give them the benefit of the doubt. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar pointed out, under the Government's framework it may be years or even decades—perhaps never—before some regions have elected assemblies, yet the new planning bodies or quangos would take powers from county councils up to the centre, and that cannot be right.

  755
  We oppose not merely the centralisation proposed in the Bill but the way in which it is being pushed through. County councils will simply be agents of the regional bodies.
  Our other major criticism of the Bill is that it will do the reverse of what the Government claim. It will not speed up the planning process. If the Government had gone for genuine decentralisation, they would have removed many of the Secretary of State's powers to intervene in each and every planning application; removing that upper tier of intervention and interference would be the best way of speeding up the planning process. However, the Bill proposes a set of local development frameworks, schemes, documents, statements of community involvement and optional action plans that together will not produce a simpler system or a speedier process.
  The Government are the only people who seem to think that streamlining something means adding to it. The current system of unitary development plans and local plans is not perfect, as I am sure Members on both sides of the House will agree, but it has improved as it has gone along. A much better approach to reform would have been to build on those improvements rather than to tear up the system.
  The current system passes an important test—my weekly advice surgery test. Constituents bring a lot of issues to our advice surgeries, many of which relate to Departments, the Government's tax and benefit systems and so on. It is often very difficult to give constituents the answers that they want to hear, and I have to refer them to other bodies. I am delighted to say that Members of Parliament do not have a central role in planning, but at least we can explain how the system works and where the constituent can obtain redress. I fear that that will become impossible under the plethora of new plans, schemes, documents, statements and so on. That is a backward step.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has the Liberal party considered community involvement? In an intervention on the Minister I stated that the Bill provides for community involvement in drawing up local development documents, but not in drawing up regional spatial strategies, which will, in effect, inform local development documents. That will circumvent any community involvement. Has the hon. Gentleman considered how community involvement may be improved in drawing up regional spatial strategies?
  Mr. Davey: I have indeed. Liberal Democrats want elected regional assemblies so that elected representatives can help to provide that community involvement. As a regional planning tier has existed for some time, it is incumbent on the hon. Gentleman and his party, who oppose regional assemblies, to say how they would involve communities in regional planning.
  The proposals on the local development process are many and complex. When one reads clause 37(6), one might think that things will be a little easier than I have led the House to believe because it says that only the development plan documents will be used to determine planning applications. That seems a lot simpler than the
  756
  plethora of schemes and frameworks that I have mentioned, but the problem is that under another part of the Bill a local authority can decide what constitutes a development plan document.
  Clause 17 refers to the statement of community involvement
  "as if it were a development plan document",
  as though the local authority does not have the power to determine that issue anyway, so there are many contradictions and much confusion in the new process that the Government propose. It is supposed to be clear, but I am afraid that it has the clarity of the mud bath.
  I do not agree with many of the CBI's comments on the Bill, but it has touched on something in its briefing for today's debate when it says:
  "This framework will be too multi-layered and complex and will increase the workload of local authorities. It is not obvious to us that the proposals will provide the clarity and simplicity that business needs."
  That is absolutely right; the planning system needs to be relatively transparent not just for business but for members of the public. If it is not clear and Members of Parliament are not easily able to explain it at their surgeries, we lose the current system's element of accountability, which is so important. I fear that that complexity will get even worse by the time the courts get their mitts on the Bill. If the Government's intention is not obvious to us in Parliament as we debate it, I am sure that the judges will have quite a lot to say about it.
  Mr. Llwyd: The judges are normally guided by what we think.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is indeed right, but the judges will have a problem because of the contradictions and confusion in the Bill.
  With local development, we have change for its own sake. Rather than building on something that could be improved and enhanced, the Government have decided to tear things up. That is a mistake not only because of the resulting lack of simplicity, but because there will be many transitional costs. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish touched on the point that high transitional costs are involved in moving from one planning system to another. A proper cost-benefit analysis would show that the benefits of the system, even according to the Government's own terms, would not outweigh the cost of the transition.
  Another contentious issue is whether the Bill is business friendly. We can look at the CBI briefing and those of other business organisations and take our pick, but some of us are concerned about the core proposal on business planning zones—they are called simplified planning zones in the Bill—which is supposed to make the Bill business-friendly. Two arguments relate to simplified planning zones. People who share my concerns believe that they could result in the planning system being pushed aside, resulting in poor design quality, a lack of accountability and thus bad planning. If that argument proves correct, those zones will clearly be a bad thing. Other people argue that, in fact, the proposals will make little difference.
  The legal framework for simplified planning zones already exists in planning legislation and all that the clauses on those zones will do is slightly change the

  757
  process in respect of regional planning bodies. I hope that the Minister will say whether she thinks that simplified planning zones will make a difference; many people's final judgment on the Bill will depend on her answer.
  Andrew Mackinlay: May I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing caution? I represent the port of Tilbury—indeed, my constituency home is by the port—and, in essence, it is already a simplified planning zone. By and large, it is not subject to normal development controls, but, of course, it has residential neighbours, and developments in port technology have often caused problems with noise and light pollution. We need to be careful not to create problems for future generations; what may be a superficially attractive scheme to help business could present other people with problems in the future.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right. My worry is that the thinking behind the Bill comes from the Treasury, not the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps that is why the measure had been cut slightly by the time it had reached that office. A few months ago, the Chancellor was very keen to respond to the business community's argument that the planning system was a real drag on competitiveness and productivity, and a few soundbites and press releases came from Great George street. The proposals look like a sop to the Chancellor. If they are as effective as some Ministers claim, that will be a worry and the hon. Gentleman will be right in what he says.
  My final major criticism of the Bill relates to community involvement. At the start of my remarks, I said that clause 17 might prove to be a welcome development, but the problem is that it is difficult to tell whether that is so from that clause, the explanatory notes and all the other related documents that the Government have issued. The Government have phrased community development in a very non-prescriptive way. That may be a good idea, because such involvement needs to reflect the communities in different parts of the country and one size clearly will not fit all of them.
  Not being over-prescriptive is perhaps the right approach, but the danger in not providing clarity is that the power might become a damp squib and community involvement in planning might become superficial rather than profound. I hope that the Government will either be more specific in their guidance on community involvement or accept amendments to clause 17.
  Mr. Drew: I have some reservations, but the danger is that we try to pretend that we can legislate in an all-embracing way. Some of the work done in rural areas in respect of village appraisals and village design statements speaks volumes for what communities can do. I would never pretend that we can legislate to make every community do that, but surely that is how we should take this forward.
  Mr. Davey: I am interested to hear about the good practice in the hon. Gentleman's area. I have seen examples of good practice in other areas, and he is right to say that we cannot be over-prescriptive, which was my point. Perhaps we can be prescriptive, however,
  758
  about what will be some of the features of good community involvement—for example, in relation to information provision and the advice that might be available to members of the public or to applicants, to make sure that there are clear standards by which to judge whether planning authorities and applicants have involved the community. Perhaps we could go one stage further—this would be controversial—by making it a statutory requirement, before applications are put to a planning authority, that developers have engaged in some early community consultation. That might promote good practice within the private sector, as there is certainly a need for that.
  There are many aspects of the Bill that I have not been able to cover in my short remarks. I hope that I have made it clear to the House that the Liberal Democrats are concerned about the centralisation and complexity in the Bill and its lack of clear vision for the planning system. What we need is a planning system that is more accountable and that has sustainability built even more firmly into its foundations. Through such features, we can have a truly efficient planning system.
  7.21 pm
  David Wright: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. I get more letters about planning applications than anything else, as I am sure many other hon. Members do. That is a sign that local people do not understand the planning system as it operates in this country, contrary to what some Opposition Members have suggested. Many people think that their MP has a veto over planning applications, and often we have to point them in the right direction in planning terms.
  The Bill is particularly welcome because it sits alongside a raft of proposed legislation to make regeneration effective and give local people the opportunity to influence change in their neighbourhoods. Contrary to the comments of some Opposition Members, the Bill has had a broad welcome from several quarters, including the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Mr. Mike Haslam, president of the Royal Town Planning Institute, has said:
  "The bill gives the planning system the power and new measures to achieve sustainable development and to influence private and public investment. It places planning and people at the heart of decisions about the futures of our towns, cities and rural areas".
  I endorse those comments because I believe that the planning process is at the heart of regeneration.
  I am conscious that many Members want to speak, so I shall try to be relatively brief. I want to focus on four key areas: regional planning structures; local planning arrangements; development control matters; and compulsory purchase issues.
  First, on regional planning, the Bill envisages the replacement of regional planning guidance with regional spatial strategies. That is more than just a change in name: there will be a change in style with more focus on the spatial form of the region and a move away from a policy-based document. It is important that the new strategies give spatial expression to, among other issues, regional transport and economic and environmental plans. All that is to be welcomed. In one sense, it repairs the damage inflicted on strategic

  759
  planning throughout the 1980s by the Conservative party. In another sense, it is a new, modern planning agenda that reflects best practice across the whole European Community.
  As we have heard, the new strategies will be led by a regional planning body, and, in the interim period, the regional assembly. I accept some of the criticism that that interim arrangement, prior to the establishment of an elected structure, takes away some democratic accountability in relation to county councils. There is a danger that the larger planning authorities will continue to drive the regional spatial strategy and base their decisions on what is best for their authorities rather than for the region as a whole. However, that is what happens now through the current regional planning structure. The counties often fail to engage fully in the regional planning process, which is a significant weakness across the country.
  It is important that the regional planning body has the appropriate level of staffing to prepare the regional strategy statement, and that the skills and views of the counties are taken fully into account. I accept that there is a danger that the proper functioning of sub-regional planning will become too dependent on regional government and the subsequent local government reforms. However, the system is not working well at present. In relation to housing target figures in particular, across many county areas, there is no coherence between what is being planned in metropolitan areas and what county councils are delivering on the ground, especially in large rural counties. We must understand that there is interdependence between housing target figures in metropolitan areas and large towns and what is being provided in rural areas.
  We need to ensure that sub-regional planning is given a dedicated role within regional planning to deal with important issues such as housing. Of course, the more quickly we can move to a comprehensive structure of regional government, the better. A key issue in the development of regional spatial strategies will be the interrelationship with regional development agencies, which has not been covered in much detail this evening. It would help if that could be more clearly defined in the Bill, which is light on comments about the role of regional development agencies, particularly in relation to economic development and transport.
  Secondly, on local planning arrangements, local plans, unitary development plans and structure plans are to be replaced by local development schemes, and every local planning authority must prepare a local development scheme that will set out what local development documents the authority will produce and a time scale for publication. I hope that that will enhance local priority setting and enable local planning authorities to focus on trying to build character into the urban form in many of our towns and cities—something that is very much absent in the current unitary development planning framework.
  Each development plan document will be subject to independent examination, with the emphasis on testing the overall soundness of the plan. The process is intended to be less formal, and that is welcome. Regulations will need to make it clear what role, if any,
  760
  legal representatives will be able to play in any examination process. In general, anything that helps to engage local people through more informal debate on planning issues will make the planning system more accessible and user-friendly.
  I particularly welcome clause 26, which requires authorities that are currently incredibly slow to produce their development plans in good time. It is not acceptable that 10 to 15 per cent. of authorities still do not have effective unitary development plan structures some years after the relevant legislation came into effect. That means that developers in many areas cannot plan effectively, and local communities cannot interact with their local authority in understanding how the planning regime is going to work in their area.
  The Bill contains a statutory duty for all development plans to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. That is an important and welcome statement, and I join the Liberal Democrat spokesman in calling on the Government to define their objectives on sustainable development more clearly. I would like some comments not only about design matters and enhancing the quality of the urban form but about sustainability in rural communities, especially in relation to providing affordable housing for people in need in those environments.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Bill requires simplified planning zones to have environmental impact assessments, which will undoubtedly require details of design to be submitted, yet, for all other planning, it does not require design details to be given before the application is submitted? Does not he think that that is an inconsistency?
  David Wright: No, because I imagine—I certainly hope—that when local planning authorities look at the contents of their local scheme and their local development framework, they will take on board those issues. When responding to applicants, they will be able to say clearly what they expect in terms of design and quality. I do not, therefore, see a problem in that regard. In fact, the process enhances the current arrangement.
  My third point relates to development control, the key issue in which is certainty for applicants. The proposed statement of development principles is a major step forward. Many local planning authorities need to be much more open in dealing with applicants and they should give better professional advice. At the moment, many authorities do not meet applicants about submitted applications and the first thing that the applicant hears is when the authority says yes or no to the application. That is not acceptable.
  I strongly welcome the Government's change of mind on major projects of national or regional importance. The Bill's proposals offer a much better solution. I was on the Procedure Committee, which recently began an investigation into the major infrastructure project process, and it concluded that the Government's previous proposal would not have been effective and would have bogged the House down with an enormous amount of work on planning matters. The proposal in the Bill is a good compromise.
  Finally, I should like to discuss compulsory purchase. Land assembly issues and land assembly for regeneration are incredibly important. The present system is

  761
  cumbersome and many of the skills that have been used over the years in compulsory purchase cases have been lost. In the 1980s, the then Government's view was that the market could deal with most regeneration issues and authorities were encouraged not to use compulsory purchase powers but to try to let the market dictate the system. Unfortunately, as we have seen in many areas, that does not work. We need the effective and smooth power of compulsory purchase to deliver major regeneration projects. We have failed, in many senses, on that agenda in the past and I would like to think that the Bill will start to put some of the problems right.
  The Bill will enhance the power of local planning authorities to obtain land by compulsory purchase by widening the definition of the objectives that compulsory purchase must achieve. There is now a need to prove that the project will contribute to the economic, social or environmental well-being of an area, and that must remain a feature of the compulsory purchase process. As we have heard, the Bill will introduce a fairer compensation scheme, covering a wider range of owners and occupiers. There is a need to ensure that the benefits of compulsory purchase orders are fully understood at the local level and that capital resources are available to enable authorities to take positive action. Flexibility for local authorities will be critical.
  I hope that, over the next three years, some of the Government's resources for investing in skills in planning will go into enhancing the skills needed to implement compulsory purchase orders and that that will link across into wider regeneration activity. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that when he winds up.
  7.32 pm
  Sir Sydney Chapman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright). The Bill's purpose is put plainly and simply in the explanatory notes. It is designed
  "to speed up the planning system".
  My view is that the planning system can be speeded up by making relatively few amendments to the existing legislation.
  I share a certain disappointment that the Bill does not contain a clearer and stronger statement on the purpose of planning. The public perceive planning to be a negative instrument when, as someone said earlier, it should enable people to get the right development in the right place at the right time. I commend the Town and Country Planning Association's definition, which states:
  "The purpose of planning is to help ensure that suitable land is available for development in ways that accord with economic, social and environmental goals and that such development is consistent with the principles of sustainable development."
  I am also slightly disappointed that there is no definition of sustainable development in the Bill. I know that it is difficult to come up with one, as I am chairman of the 44-nation Council of Europe committee on sustainable development. I offered a prize at the world summit in Johannesburg recently to the person who could give the simplest and shortest definition of sustainable development. I was speaking globally, but I got the definition down to eight words. It is "conserving finite resources of Earth for future generations".
  762
  However, a more homely definition of sustainable development—exactly what the Government are trying to achieve—could appear in the Bill.
  It may be appropriate to declare what I might best describe as a reverse financial interest. I have been a member and fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute for 40 years. Unfortunately, the requirements of continuing professional development have caught up with me, and I have been advised that it might be a good thing if I applied for retired membership status. That would save me a considerable amount of money, but I thought of sending the institute 28 years of Hansard to try to show what I have been doing and the interest that I have continued to take in town and country planning issues. None the less, I declare a possible interest as a member of the institute.
  The detail of these 90 clauses and six schedules is, of course, best left to discussion in Committee. I want to speak about a few of the broad themes of what the Bill seeks to do. I share the anxieties about the rather radical changes and the introduction of regional functions, with the regional spatial strategy and the regional planning bodies. I share the criticism that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made. The Bill puts the cart before the horse. It should not apply unless and until regional assemblies have been set up and are directly elected. In that sense, there is a democratic deficit in the Bill.
  I also regret the severe curtailment of the present powers of county councils. Even the powers that will remain underline that there will be yet another layer of bureaucracy in the town and country planning system. I read the Bill in a way similar to that of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). It will hugely increase the powers given to the Secretary of State and lead to their centralisation.
  The hon. Gentleman understands the current position in London. The Mayor has been given certain powers to call in particular applications. I will not go into detail, but they are not necessarily the largest applications. However, the Mayor has been given considerable powers. Once an application is submitted to the local planning authority—in London, it will be one of the London boroughs—it has to be referred to the Mayor, who has the power to direct the local planning authority to turn the application down. If he does that and the application is turned down, the applicant can quite properly appeal to the Secretary of State. If the applicant does not appeal, or the Mayor does not intervene on what he considers to be a good application, the Secretary of State can still call in that application. Precisely that has happened in my constituency. I ask the Government to reconsider. The powers for the regions should not be implemented unless and until directly elected regional assemblies—irrespective of our view of them—are set up.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have dropped the idea mentioned in the Green Paper that Parliament might decide on major planning cases and infrastructure projects. A local public inquiry is essential. The problem occurs when that process takes as long as it did for Sizewell B and Heathrow terminal 5. That was the Government's fault and not that of the system.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). Clause 43 deals with major infrastructure projects. When major infrastructure projects are of

  763
  national or regional importance, the Secretary of State will be able to call them in and he must appoint an inspector to consider the application. New subsection 76A(6) under clause 43(6) adds:
  "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be applied in considering an application under this section".
  I want the Bill to stipulate that there should be a local public inquiry in such situations. I find it inconceivable that there might not be and I hope that the Government take that on board.
  Local development frameworks, by which I mean local development schemes and documents, will replace the local plan system, which includes structure plans, unitary development plans and local plans. I agree that there will be confusion and complication. Although I fully accept that the Government want to streamline the process, the proposal will have the opposite effect. Of course I welcome clause 22, which allows modifications to be made to draft unitary development plans and other plans without having to repeat consultations and reopen inquiries.
  I am worried about the business planning zones and must caution the Government on them. Simplified planning zones already exist and in the old days, we had enterprise zones. We do not need the new scheme. Instead, we should use the existing simplified planning zone technique. It might be right not to require an outline planning permission if a development is proposed in an area where the land use is in conformity with the proposal. That could apply to many other areas. However, we need to continue the general principle of requiring outline planning applications because they give certainty and assurance to the planning process.
  I read the comments in the White Paper on speeding up decisions. It proposes that 65 per cent. of minor commercial and industrial applications, and 80 per cent. of other minor applications, should be determined within eight weeks, but why not 100 per cent.? I do not think that 65 and 80 per cent. are appropriate figures. One way to speed up the planning process for minor, not major, applications is to deem them granted if a determination is not made in eight weeks.
  On the rights of third parties, I hold what must be defined as the publicly unpopular view. Third parties have rights when the Secretary of State calls in an application for a public local inquiry and they can give evidence before the decision is made. I recognise that, at the other end of the scale, local planning authorities consult on other applications, although whether they do that adequately is a matter of subjective judgment. I fear that if the rights of third parties are expanded, the whole system will grind to a halt.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am listening carefully. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the Republic of Ireland, a gateway gets rid of the chaff to leave only the wheat? Genuine complaints go forward and there is no delay. If it is possible that a bad neighbour will impinge on an individual, it is right for that individual to have redress.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman nicely anticipates what I am about to say. For certain
  764
  applications and to a limited extent, a case can be made to enhance the rights of third parties, but if the gateway is too wide, the whole system will grind to a halt.
  Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his position on the eight-week rule? He suggested that it might accelerate the process if an applicant is deemed to have consent after eight weeks. Is he advocating that as part of the planning process? If so, what consequences would that have for the rights of third parties?
  Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am not saying that that principle should apply throughout. All I am saying is that there should be a back-up for some relatively minor cases. For example, if a decision is not given within eight weeks, deemed consent might be considered appropriate. I hope, however, that on simpler and minor applications eight weeks will not be needed. The planning officer should ring up the applicant and say, "We've got this. It is in conformity with land use. You've got the right density, which we approve of. We are just a bit worried about vehicular access to the site or housing estate and think that it should be pushed 20 ft along the road." Such problems could be dealt with over the telephone, modified on the plan submitted and stamped by the local planning officer. In those minor cases in which planning officers are allowed to make a decision, it could be given within a week. We want to encourage that approach.
  On section 106 agreements—I suppose the section number will have to change if the Bill is accepted—I welcome what the Minister said about the need for transparency. Frankly, many section 106 agreements are uncertain. They consume time and are anything but transparent. Indeed—I choose my words carefully—some of them could be seen to border on perceived corruption because the impression is given that people can get what they want provided that they give a certain amount of money. That unsatisfactory arrangement should be changed.
  I welcome the power not to accept repeat applications and twin-track applications. People can use and abuse the system. They go through the process. As soon as they are turned down, they appeal and put in another minor variant. I would welcome the time for appealing against refusals being cut from six to three months. I think that that is proposed, although I am not sure whether it is in the Bill. I very much welcome the ability of the local planning authority to expand permitted development rights.
  We have moved a long way on compulsory purchase and I have a suggestion that may help us move a bit further. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which was great in many respects, had one fault: it was deeply unfair to people whose land was confiscated in compulsory purchase orders. I say confiscated because they did not get anything like the full market value of their land. All they received was an imagined piece of a £400 million pot. Over the years, we have gradually moved to the market value, although many people do not think that the amount set by district valuers is enough. There is a case not for 100 per cent. compensation, but for 110 per cent. compensation provided the owner agrees within a specific period. That would provide an incentive, and it would be possible to

  765
  get the land and to carry out the development. That would be especially useful when we need to widen roads or construct new ones.
  Dr. Whitehead: That sounds remarkably like giving someone money for doing what one wants. I thought that the hon. Gentleman rejected that principle.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: If we give 110 per cent., we are not giving people more than they deserve. It is not a case simply of buying the land, but of accepting that they have to move, which causes expenses. I accept that the Bill deals with loss of payments, but still think that, for the Government and the taxpayer, my proposal is good value for money, as the land would be obtained earlier—the longer it takes to get the land, the more it costs to carry out the development.
  Peter Bradley: That is an interesting idea, but will it not have the opposite effect to that desired by the hon. Gentleman? Compulsory purchase comes into play only when the private or public promoter of a scheme has failed to negotiate the acquisition of land with the owner. He is providing the landowner with an incentive not to deal with the applicant but to hold on to the promise of getting 110 per cent. of the value that could be obtained much earlier and more constructively through negotiation.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I am not proposing that such a scheme be implemented in every case. I do not have time to develop this argument, but there are cases in which putting in an early, favourable offer with a time limit will help people to achieve what they want. The present method provides every incentive to delay and hang on.
  I doubt whether the Bill, as drafted, will speed up planning. It is possible, but not probable. There is no doubt that the Secretary of State will be given many more and greater powers. I am concerned about county councils' loss of statutory powers, and believe that local development frameworks are unnecessarily complicated. Decision making could become more remote and local people would have less say if the Bill goes through unamended. To return to my central point, while the Bill is good in parts, its approach is wrong, and the Government should have sought to amend the principal measure—the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I therefore feel obliged to support the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  7.52 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: I shall speak briefly about county planning functions and the Bill's proposals to change them.
  I was interested to hear Opposition Members mount a thorough defence of county councils. That has not always been the Conservatives' position. The previous Government, I recall, instructed the Banham commission to assume that county councils would be abolished in the early stages of its deliberations on local authority structure. Indeed, one hon. Member who is in the Chamber today was a commissioner and succeeded
  766
  in abolishing Berkshire, of which he may be proud. Such a development is at odds with the thorough historical defence mounted by some hon. Members today.
  Counties' function in planning is mainly to produce structure plans which, unlike local plans, do not relate directly to communities—they are general devices that sketch out broad areas of use, defend areas like the strategic gap in Hampshire, show where population growth may occur, and so on. The Conservative defence of county councils, which, as I mentioned, is relatively new, is not based on that function but, bizarrely, on the idea that counties are bastions of communities. In the debate on the Loyal Address, the king of the Tories over the water, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), called them "organic communities". They are lots of things, but they are not organic communities. If we take a look at local authorities in the round, we could say that counties are providers of generic and strategic services. They do not have a specific community function, but plan and co-ordinate county land use, mineral extraction, waste disposal and so on. Some of those functions, as hon. Members have said, will be retained by counties in the Bill.
  District councils have a clear community function in the proper sense of the word. The Bill makes community input a requirement for local plans in the shape of the new local development frameworks, which must include a statement of community involvement, as set out in clause 17. The process of community involvement is pitched at the right level, as communities will be able to make more decisions that affect their daily lives through the local development framework than has hitherto been the case. They will have input in the planning of their streets, their neighbourhood and the local shopping centre. Moreover, that input will have to be demonstrated by the local authority before the local development plan is finalised.
  Contrary to claims by Opposition spokesmen, that is in line with recent pronouncements of the current Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who made a speech about returning power to local government, quite improbably on the occasion of the Nicholas Ridley memorial lecture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) said, as a Minister in the Thatcher Government, Nicholas Ridley was probably more responsible for damaging and disabling local government, and its representative, community and, significantly, planning functions, than any other Minister in living memory. However, I will let that pass.
  The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green did not equivocate or attempt to pretend that counties were local communities or even organic communities. He said, among other things, that
  "we need more responsibility exercised at a local level … I don't just mean by that giving back more powers to local government … I mean enabling people to take power themselves … it's what I call community government".
  I would have thought that Opposition Members would be in favour of the provisions on local development frameworks, but apparently they are not—I guess that relates to their hang-up with counties and their defence. They do not want county functions that relate to communities passed to communities nor, on the other

  767
  hand, do they want functions that relate to strategic planning and regional co-ordination passed to regions. They want to keep things just as they are.
  If we step back and look impartially at the logic of the counties' function as the unit of strategic planning, we must ask why we should plan strategically on that basis. The only answer, frankly, is that we plan like that because that is how it has always been. I do not mean that that is how it has been since counties were established as elected bodies in their current form at the end of the 19th century, or even since the modern planning system came into being. I really do mean that that is how it has always been. If we look at a historical atlas, a remarkable fact emerges—counties have always had roughly the boundaries that they now have. A time traveller departing the earth in 1390 and returning today would have no idea that he had landed back in the same country until his eyes lit upon a map of the English counties, after which he would be certain that he had.
  That may be good news for cultural integrity—counties are certainly a deep cultural implantation in the English psyche, as the polling during the local government review of the early 1990s demonstrated. However, I wonder whether a structure whose boundaries have withstood the black death, the depopulation of mediaeval centres of industry, the enclosures, the industrial revolution, the rise of urban ribbon development and the suburbs, has the best boundaries on which to base strategic planning considerations for the next 100 years. Planning strategically at regional level therefore makes sense, as it allows a structure plan to look at the deployment of land use overall; how uses cohabit with each other; how transportation systems work; and how urban, semi-urban and rural areas may be mutually defended to come into their own. Over time, Opposition Members' objection that regions are not democratically accountable—whereas counties, whatever their flawed planning function, are—is likely to be overcome as regions establish elected assemblies and as regional spatial strategies come under their purview.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the people of Southampton, let alone Hampshire, are likely to vote to join the regional assembly of the south-east? If he does not, is he happy that the regional spatial plan will be prepared by some unelected regional body that will dictate to his own unitary authority exactly what it must have in its local development document?
  Dr. Whitehead: I have said in the House and on previous occasions that, in my view, we are engaged in a process. We recently had a Bill before the House paving the way for people to take a decision on whether they wish, at this stage or later, to have a democratically elected regional assembly looking after the regional strategic interests that I described. My personal view is that the process whereby that transition will be completed will be much shorter than some hon. Members currently believe. The process will speed up, as has happened in other countries of Europe, as people come to see why an elected regional assembly is useful and advantageous to their region.
  768
  My personal view, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that whether that will finally result in a body covering exactly the boundaries of the south-east region and having full regional accountability is a matter for further discussion, but the principle that democratically elected regional assemblies will come to England over a relatively short period can certainly be argued. [Interruption.] The answer is that we are engaged in a process, as I have just told the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Opposition Members ought to understand the difference between something that is static and something that is a process. Their failure to understand that may explain why they are in the position that they are in.
  It is imperative for regional planning to be sustainable, as hon. Members from all parties have said this evening. We in the House have rightly committed ourselves to targets for emission reductions to combat climate change, targets for biodiversity, indicators on the quality of life, the establishment of targets for the proportion of housing to be built on brownfield sites, and so on. All these are important targets and indicators, and their achievement or failure will depend to a great extent on our use of land.
  If we agree to a free-for-all on urban ribbon development, if we go back to the days of the aforesaid Nicholas Ridley and rubber-stamp out-of-town shopping developments, if we agree to massive house building on greenfield sites, or if we develop settlements that increase commuting time and car use, those indicators and targets will fall by the wayside. Strategic land use planning and planning for strategic economic development must be co-located with sustainability. In this respect, I am not sure that we have made a brilliant start.
  I read the first published economic development plans for each of the new regional development agencies some while ago, and also the regional policy guidance that then ran alongside them. Without exception, the stated ambition of each of the regions was at that point
  "to drive the region to perform economically at 'above the national average'".
  We could suggest kindly that that sounds rather similar to statements made by premiership football managers at the beginning of each season that their ambition this year is "a place in Europe"—an ambition which, for many of them, rapidly becomes obviously unachievable, although this season, remarkably, not in the case of Southampton football club.
  A series of RDAs aiming to perform economically at above the national average is bound to conflict with regional planning guidance and, if the Bill is agreed by the House, with regional spatial strategies, if the latter are to unfold in line with the imperatives of sustainability in land use planning. The fact that clause 38(2) states that the regional spatial strategy should be undertaken with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development will not resolve the problem entirely. In the legislation setting up the RDAs, it was stated that one of the five primary purposes of each RDA was to
  "contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom where it is relevant to its area to do so".
  To date, the potential conflict of outcome between what an RDA does, and what regional planning requires, remains unresolved.

  769
  We need better to define the term "sustainability" in the Bill. We need to make sure that that clause is substantially strengthened if a logical and progressive new system of planning, which I heartily endorse, is to become meaningful in terms of the needs of sustainable planning in England.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: An article about the Bill in the Financial Times on 25 November stated that 60 per cent. of local authority planners believed that the Bill would be a failure, and that it would
  "fail to speed up applications as the Treasury wants, according to the PPS Group, the consultation specialists who conducted the survey of 129 planning officers across the country. Stephen Byfleld, of PPS, said: 'The government has promoted the new bill as the way to streamline the planning system. Our research shows that the people who actually make the decisions—planning officers—believe the precise opposite will happen. The system"—
  [Interruption.] I am quoting, not necessarily expressing my own view. I shall develop the idea presently, if hon. Members will bear with me. The article continues:
  "The system is in fact about to become still more cumbersome, time consuming and, therefore, expensive."
  Those were the views of 129 planning officers—not necessarily mine, as I said. I am starting with the blackest part of my remarks.
  It is my belief, since I have been in this place, that there is a certain ambivalence towards local government at Westminster. Over the past two decades, more than 120 Acts have been passed, gradually scraping away local government powers. There is a distrust of local democracy here, despite lip service being paid—we have heard it this evening, and we will hear more later this evening, I am sure. The bottom line is that this place does not want local government to become over-mighty. That is a bad thing.
  If we are serious about local democracy and empowerment, surely we should do more than merely pay lip service to that notion. The apparent readiness to find fault with local government is not confined to this place. Recently, Margaret Curran, the Minister for Social Justice in the Scottish Executive, put all the blame for planning shortcomings squarely on the shoulders of local government and no one else.
  In the Welsh context, clauses 56 and 59 deal with the necessity for local development plans. That is a good idea. We should have local development plans that are overseen, in this case by the National Assembly. One hopes, of course, that the National Assembly will not play the role of big brother, as Westminster has done with local government. Hitherto, that has not been the case, and the hope is that it will not happen. On the face of it, the proposal is acceptable, provided that it is not shorthand for the Assembly and, in England, the Department, usurping the planning functions of local government.
  After all, the thrust of the Bill is to speed up the planning system. There has already been a move to involve Whitehall in too many planning matters—for example, the larger wind power schemes need the approval of the Department of Trade and Industry, over the head of the National Assembly. With that caveat, it is right that there should be an input from the Department, and in the Welsh context from the Assembly.
  770
  Ceredigion council in central Wales recently came up with the idea that it needed 6,500 new homes. The research basis for that figure is non-existent. It was arrived at on the whim of a group of independent councillors. There is, sadly, no proof of local need. No methodology has been applied. The idea is being driven by independents on the council, some of whom stand to gain considerably from it. The figure of 6,500 homes seems to have been plucked out of the air. The driving force behind it is questionable. The independent councillors are adamant about the issue, and I might add that they are strongly supported by the Liberal Democrat councillors. At stake is the potential for extreme dilution of the Welsh language and culture because of the building of houses for which there exists no proven local need. The result would be a further influx of people who can pay higher prices, ensuring that the housing market spirals even further out of the reach of local youngsters. That stark scenario is a current one and I welcome the fact that the National Assembly for Wales will have a pivotal role in preventing such abuse from recurring.
  I welcome the spatial plans as, in the Welsh context, the National Assembly for Wales will be doing the work. I think that the proposal is sensible and, in England, it is a step towards true regional economic planning. The same is equally, if not more blatantly so in Wales. Several hon. Members have pointed out that planning might be working slightly better in Wales than in England. I am very pleased to hear that. It proves that we can do some things right. Indeed, I hope that before long we will also legislate well in Wales, although that is a debate for another day—or perhaps I should say other days.
  What will be expected of planning authorities in their local development plans, which are dealt with in clause 56? I hope very much that the authorities will consider in their plans health impact assessments and the Welsh language impact. Those are bread-and-butter issues in Wales and I hope that they will be dealt with in due course by being included in the Bill. Furthermore, I hope that it will be made clear that the plans should have due regard to housing strategy and mineral development strategy, which should be linked. Indeed, the National Assembly has recently done some very good work in that regard.
  I continue to be dismayed by the fact that local authorities do not as a matter of course undertake audits to survey local housing needs, concentrating on affordable housing. That was a strong recommendation of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs back in 1995 or 1996, but unfortunately precious little has been done, despite the fact that the need for social and affordable housing is even greater now than it was at that time.
  The idea of limiting the duration of planning permissions from five to three years is good and I welcome it unreservedly, but I regret that the Government did not bite the bullet fully and provide a time limit within which the development has to be completed or referred back to the planning authority so an explanation can be given as to why an extension is being sought. Hon. Members will know that far too many developers use land as a resource and pension policy. In so doing, they skew natural and proper development in any area. Development can mean as

  771
  little as a few pegs in the ground. In dealing with development, Sweet and Maxwell's "Encyclopaedia of Planning" refers to
  "any work of construction in the course of erecting a building".
  It seems to me that simply marking out a plot is enough.
  If the House will bear with me, I should like to cite one example. Aberdyfi in the south of my constituency is a small and fascinating maritime village with a year-round population of approximately 400 to 500. In the 1960s, a developer decided to submit an application for 200 houses on Copper hill above the village. There was no local need for the houses at that time and there is no such need now, but the mere fact that those permissions have existed for more than 30 years without a single plot being built upon has created terrible problems for small-scale local developers who have an eye on building affordable and social housing and on the local need. The obvious problem is that whenever a developer applies for planning permission in the locality, it is deemed that housing numbers are sufficient, but the parcel of 200 houses up on the hill has yet to be developed. Of course, if it is ever developed, it will result in the ruination of the wonderful little village of Aberdyfi.
  The irksome aspect of that situation is that it has caused a planning blight in about a third of my constituency, as people cannot build a few houses to meet the local need because of a development that was allowed previously. I think that we should grasp that nettle. In saying that, I am sure that I speak for hon. Members and other people who have encountered the same problem. I believe that the situation that I have described is wrong and skews the planning system altogether. I do not think that land should be used a resource for investment for the future if that is to the detriment of those who need places to live in the foreseeable future.
  Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman is reading from my script and, I am sure, that of many other hon. Members. Is he aware that his local authority would have the power to extinguish the planning consent that existed on the site to which he referred for 40 years, but in exercising it, would have to pay compensation at market value for houses that had never been built in that time? Does that not underline the importance of ensuring that those on the Front Bench, whom I am sure are listening very closely to this exchange, consider the Bill and find some way of accommodating the view that he advanced, which I support?
  Mr. Llwyd: Yes, I was aware of that point. I am by no means a know-all, but I am aware of the issue, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why: in the Caernarfon constituency, the same thing happened in a little village called Morfa Bychan—Hansard is going to have a fun day today—outside Porthmadog, where the council opted to do just what he described. However, the process cost millions of pounds. As we well know, money is not in huge supply in local government. I appreciate the point that he makes and sincerely hope on behalf of not only my constituents, but all our constituents, that the matter is readdressed in Committee.
  772
  I read with interest the references to community consultation, which are welcome as far as they go. How is it intended that that consultation will take place? In other words, what will be the proposed avenues for dialogue? I welcome the idea, but how will it work? Anybody can see that the community council will have a role, but there will be other aspects and I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten me about them.
  Another matter that has concerned people in Wales is second homes. Concern is felt not only in Wales, but in Cumbria, Cornwall, the Cotswolds and anywhere else that anybody would like to name within reasonable commuter distances of towns and so on. The problem with properties that are used as second homes is that they undermine the viability of villages. I can speak of a village called Rhyd in my constituency, where only one or two local families are left all year round and the village shop and post office have gone. [Interruption.] I shall, no doubt, assist Hansard in due course; I promise to do so. The point is that the local shop has been undermined and the post office and village pub, church, chapel and school have all gone. The infrastructure has completely disappeared.
  We need to consider how to tackle that problem, which affects many areas throughout the UK, but is of particular moment in Wales. Very often, the areas where it happens most are the economically inactive ones—rural areas where there are houses to be bought and some people can afford to buy them, while youngsters cannot necessarily do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) last year introduced the Housing (Wales) Bill in an attempt to deal with that problem among others, including homes in multiple occupation. One of the notions that struck us was a use classes order. We could consider introducing such an order and the question whether a property that is not occupied all year round should be deemed to be in a different use class from that of a full-time residential property. That might be one way forward.
  I went to see Ministers about that issue before the White Paper was published. No names, no pack drill, but one Minister in particular was fully on board that it should happen. He said that he would put the matter in train, but unfortunately when the paper hit the Cabinet table, or a table slightly above his, the matter was stamped on and mysteriously disappeared. We were left with the odd and soppy suggestion of doubling the council tax. That does not go far when one is dealing with economic inequity and when the people buying the properties have more money to spend than the locals.
  Peter Bradley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Rural Housing Trust, an extremely respectable and authoritative organisation in this field, believes that the receipts from the doubling of council tax could meet the shortfall in the funding of affordable housing? That would make a significant contribution to addressing the needs and problems to which he referred.
  Mr. Llwyd: I have no doubt that the doubling of council tax will be beneficial, but it will not crack the problem. Perhaps I was wrong to call it a sop, because it is more than that. Clearly, however, it is not the absolute answer.
  Interestingly, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs said eight years ago that it would like a quota of, for example, 10 per cent. development allowed in any given

  773
  community, and that that should be decided locally. If only 10 per cent. were allowed in a locality, that would, I hope, assist sustainable communities. However, that is a debate for another day. I am pleased to see that I have struck a chord with Labour Members. The subject can no doubt be revisited in Committee.
  I wish to make two quick points. It is important to have a third party right of appeal because of potential bad neighbour applications. There should be a gateway to sift out the wheat from the chaff, and genuine grievances should be heard. Indeed, I am beginning to think that this may have a human rights aspect. I commend to hon. Members the way in which the model works in Ireland. It is a good model that does not create delay, and it is worthy of examination.
  We have all got terribly worked up this evening about how good compulsory purchase will be. I wonder where the money will come from to effect compulsory purchase; my local authority can hardly pay for social services, let alone compulsory purchase. Of course there are resource implications, but in principle, the idea is good and should be welcomed.
  There are some good aspects to the Bill, but many things need correcting. I hope that I am wrong in thinking that the dead hand of Westminster and over-centralisation are in the background. I hope that the Bill will be improved in Committee.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: Had the Government proposed today a Bill that embodied the suggestions in their Green Paper, I would have been making a very different speech. I would have attacked the idea that we could have a planning system without plans and a local development framework that would at best have been described as woolly, with no opportunities for the public to engage in its formulation. I would have said that the infrastructure project proposals were unworkable, and that plans for tariffs or taxes were at best only half considered. However, the Government listened to the objections and concerns that the Select Committee and others raised, and made fundamental alterations. They should be given credit for that.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) said earlier, we should be proud of the planning system in this country. When it was born in 1947, it was a radical measure. Its fundamental principle was that the legal right to develop should not rest with the owner of the property. Effectively, it transferred the power of development from the individual to the community. Labour Members should have great regard to that and always make sure that we comply with it when considering changes to the planning system.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Exclusion, who introduced the debate, spoke about a step change. In reality, the Government should be saying that they are taking a small number of steps, mainly in the right direction, along the lines recommended by the Select Committee.
  Some criticisms have been made of the local development framework. When I first read the legislation, with its framework, documents and plans, it appeared a little confusing and not quite thought
  774
  through. The proposals for Wales are slightly simpler and easier to understand. In response to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), I can say that the other day I spoke to the chief planner in Sheffield, Les Sturch, who was quite content that the proposals were workable and could deliver in time the ideas, procedures and throughput that the Government seek.
  I particularly welcome the fact that we are to have public inquiries and community consultation and involvement in the local development framework. As I told my hon. Friend the Minister earlier, the requirement to have maps is important because it provides a degree of certainty and understanding to the community about what is intended in the area. Most of the development in Sheffield in the past 10 years has taken place in my constituency. People come to my surgeries asking me to stop development on fields next to their homes. I tell them that something called the unitary development plan for the whole city shows the acceptable development on any piece of land. They complain that they did not know about that, and I answer that the whole city was consulted at some point. They argue that they did not live in their house at that time, and I say that, had they gone to the local library or town hall before buying their house, they could have seen a copy of the plan and the likely development on the land.
  People then begin to understand that there is a degree of fairness. They may not like the fact that houses will be built, but they at least understand that the system is fair. At that point, it is convenient for the local Member of Parliament to say that he can do nothing about the matter, but that consultation took place in the past. The measure gives certainty to the community because people can know what is likely to be built on land near their home and developers can know whether planning permission is likely to be accepted in principle.
  Clearly, any system can be reformed. I welcome the changes to stop serial repeat applications and to reduce the life of planning permission from five years to three. If I heard the Minister correctly earlier—this is an important point of clarification—she said that in future planning permission would not automatically be granted again once the expiry date had passed. That is important because, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said, many permissions hang round for years and years, and they cause a perverse form of planning blight. If people know that once the planning permission has expired, it will not automatically be renewed, the system will become more certain, and I would certainly welcome that.
  I wish to pick up an important issue that was referred to earlier: enforcement. It is not in the Bill, but if local authority decisions are to be carried through, enforcement is necessary. Developers will always try to get a bit more out of the scheme than they are entitled to.
  The Mosborough village action group is an active body in my constituency whose members take a great interest in planning matters. They said that they knew that planning officers would always fundamentally be engaged in considering new applications and had no time to look for breaches in developers' conditions. However, as interested members of the community, the group could do that.

  775
  In neighbourhood watch, interested members of the community help their local police officers and are recognised for the role that they fulfil. Why could not we develop planning watch, so that interested members of the community could be formally recognised, have a direct link to planning officers, receive some formal training and thus play an important role in enhancing enforcement? That would help to ensure that developers did not get away with breaching conditions. It is an interesting idea. I accept that my hon. Friend the Undersecretary may not be able to respond officially to it tonight, but perhaps he could consider it. Involving the community positively and engaging it with the planning process could have great benefits.
  Richard Younger-Ross: A simpler method might be to ask the building control officers to do the final check on whether a building had been constructed according to the requirements of the planning application. Building control officers are there at the end of the process.
  Mr. Betts: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Undersecretary would like to respond to that. It is right to involve more people in the enforcement process. People who are involved in the community, interested in such matters and who often walk around on site could be engaged slightly more formally. My idea has merit.
  I want to deal with two criticisms of the current system that have been exposed to some extent. First, it is alleged to be slow. Secondly, it is alleged to be anti-business and anti-competition. The system is sometimes slow, but evidence to the Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee showed that resources and lack of staff have been a major problem. I am delighted by the Government's commitment to the extra £350 million. It is right not to ring-fence the money; it should be up to local authorities to determine their priorities. However, they should be held to account for the way in which they deal with planning applications.
  It is often said that urban authorities' unitary development plans are adopted when they are due for revision. Clearly that is nonsense, but the responsibility ultimately lies with Ministers. If we set up a system—unitary development plans now or local development frameworks in future—that requires local authorities to act, Ministers must set out time scales and spell out clearly the consequences of not complying with them. There are currently no sanctions against a local authority that does not want to adopt a set of local plans. That must be examined if we are serious about the matter.
  Mr. Truswell: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of placing the responsibility on local authorities, but should not the Government bear some responsibility? Many delays in finalising unitary development plans fall between holding the public inquiries and inspectors furnishing local authorities with their reports.
  Mr. Betts: That is a fair point. If there is a requirement on local authorities, perhaps the Government should also set themselves a clear timetable so that they can be judged against it.
  776
  Do we always want speedy decisions? We certainly want the right decisions. Speeding up the process can sometimes lead to decisions that are not in the best interests of the whole community. Sometimes the problem lies with the quality of the applications, which cannot be determined because the developer gives insufficient or incorrect details. The responsibility does not always lie with the planners. We must accept that although better public consultation will slow down the process, it may mean that the decision is ultimately better.
  I welcome the Government's commitment to community involvement by providing for each local authority to devise a statement of their method of operating the policy. I hope that we have seen the last of the notice on the lamp post as the only method of telling or consulting the public about a planning application. However, speed for its own sake can be wrong. An element of caution is therefore desirable.
  Let us consider the second allegation that the planning system is anti-business. We heard much rhetoric, but it was accompanied by little evidence. I am not happy about the simplified planning zones. I do not know what they are supposed to achieve. I hope that one or two will be dotted around the country, shown to be ineffective, and thus the idea, like that of enterprise zones, will go away, enabling local authorities to get on with the proper planning job that they are supposed to do. Sheffield asks Ministers for many things, but please do not give us a simplified planning zone; send it somewhere else if it must exist.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman know that simplified planning zones already exist under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, and that since that time, only 20 have been designated? Given the enhanced threshold of an environmental impact assessment that the Bill requires, is it likely that many more will be designated?
  Mr. Betts: Either an explosion of uncontrolled development, which would be wrong, could happen, or nothing much will occur because there are few benefits. I hope that the latter is the case, and that the zones are simply someone's idea of a sop to appease the Confederation of British Industry, which is wrong about such issues and cannot substantiate its comments with evidence.
  The planning process gives certainty not only to communities but to business. Someone who invests in a high-quality business park or office development does not want a scrap yard next door. The Select Committee visited Sheffield and saw the regeneration of the city centre. Alison Nimmo, who heads Sheffield 1, said that the reason for retailers' interest in developing the town centre was that they knew that the local authority, backed by the Government, would use its planning powers to stop out-of-town shopping developments. It is as simple as that. Such certainty is important to business as well.
  The only bit of evidence that I could see was from the Competition Commission, which managed to hold an inquiry and conclude that the lack of competition among British food retailers was due to the restrictions on their developing out-of-town shopping centres,

  777
  which were put in place through PPG6. I find that bizarre, because I did not notice a great deal of competition springing up when we had a free-for-all on out-of-town shopping developments or new firms moving in to ask for developments to be created.
  The Competition Commission has spoken about trying to create more competition by encouraging more out-of-town shopping developments, but if that were to work it would set up competition only for those with cars to get them there. There would be no competition, and no shops in many cases, for the poor in our deprived communities.
  I refer to what has just happened in Darnall, which is one of the poorest parts of my constituency. Incorrectly and in contradiction of PPG6 in my view, the neighbouring authority, Rotherham, renewed a planning application for an out-of-town food superstore, which was taken up by Morrisons. Surprise, surprise, 12 months after the decision was agreed, Morrisons decided to close its Darnall store, which effectively removed the heart from the shopping centre.
  Worse still, I understand that Morrisons is refusing to sell its store to another interested retailer that wants to buy it up. It is therefore depriving my constituents, many of whom are elderly, on low incomes and without a car, of a supermarket in which to do their food shopping. In view of such proposals, I am much more content with a planning system that looks after community interests than one that mistakenly tries to develop such competition. The certainty given to British business by the planning system is worthwhile indeed in terms of competition and something that we should protect.
  There are many good things and many things that I agree with in the Bill. I am happy to support it in total, although there are issues that we must consider in more detail, as they need to be subjected to further scrutiny. In general, I give the Bill my strong support.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Paul Goodman: I want to develop a theme that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who is not in his place. He referred to the role of county councils, although the House will perhaps not be surprised if I do not follow exactly the same line of argument.
  We might all agree that a key question for decision making in a democracy is the level at which decisions should be taken, so I want to address planning in general and the Bill in particular in the light of that question, although I have no doubt as to the answer that most of my constituents in Wycombe would give: ideally, decisions should be taken locally and as close to local communities as possible. They should be taken wherever possible by institutions with a claim on the loyalties and affections of those governed by them, which, in short, have legitimacy.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the counties have a deep cultural resonance in the English psyche. He is right about that, which is why my hon. Friends and I think that he is wrong in the rest of his argument. The background against which the Bill is set is not one where decisions are always, or even usually, made locally. Indeed, the trend in Britain since the war, under Governments of both parties, has been for more and
  778
  more decisions to be made in Westminster and Whitehall—a process that has accelerated under this Government. That, of course, applies to planning as well as to many other examples.
  Local representatives in the High Wycombe and Marlow area from many political parties, not just my own, have told me that they believe that there is now no effective local control over important elements of the planning system, especially in relation to house building. They feel that Westminster and Whitehall are creating a damaging spiral in the south-east whereby development is approved from the centre, thus encouraging a further movement of people to the southeast from other regions, thus creating further housing demand, thus bringing about in turn more development approved in the south-east from the centre. So, a vital question for them and for my constituents is the degree to which the Bill will make planning more local and accountable.
  There are good aspects to the Bill. Few Bills, perhaps, are entirely bad. I welcome, for example, the Government's intention to eliminate repeat applications and twin-tracking—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member- for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). However, the main argument of Opposition Members is that the thrust of the Bill is to make planning less local, less accountable and less democratic.
  One of the principal intentions of the Bill is to dynamite the present planning architecture and replace it with a new structure, at the apex of which will be the new regional assemblies. That may be adequate where there is real demand for a regional assembly, such as in the north-east—although there is scope for argument about that—but what about areas such as the southeast, where even Ministers concede there is little demand for a regional assembly? The Bill proposes to take power away from directly elected representatives and to give it to people who are not directly accountable to voters, if at all.
  Buckinghamshire county council argues that, if the Bill as presently drafted becomes an Act, county councils will have no statutory powers relating to strategic or sub-regional planning; regional planning bodies will decide whether it is desirable for county councils to have a function at regional or sub-regional level, which means that the regional planning bodies may decide in a particular instance that it is not desirable; and district councils may agree to the involvement of county councils in the production of local development documents through the establishment of a joint committee. Therefore, district councils may not agree in a particular instance that county councils should be involved in the production of local development documents.
  Buckinghamshire county council also argues that county councils need to have planning powers to fulfil their duty to secure the social, economic and environmental well-being of their areas. County councils throughout England are putting similar arguments. My hon. Friends and I support them. That is the democratic deficit that has been alluded to by many speakers in the debate—not just Conservative Members, but Liberal Democrats. Without a statutory planning duty in the Bill, county councils will be unable to maintain a strategic planning function and a skills base, which will be to the detriment of the regional

  779
  spatial strategy and local development documents. If the remit of county council planning experts is merely to advise other bodies, to assist them and to provide them with technical expertise, county councils are unlikely, given the pressure on them from education and social services, to retain that expertise unless they have a statutory role in the planning system.
  The Minister will be aware that Buckinghamshire county council's view is supported by the Local Government Association, the Civic Trust, the Planning Officers Society, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, to which reference was made earlier. Even the Minister would have to concede that that is a formidable list.
  Under the Bill, county councils in areas such as the south-east are to be squeezed between elected district councils and groups that are not directly accountable to voters at regional level—or quangos, to use the word used by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). District councils are also unhappy about the tensions that will result. Wycombe district council has said:
  "Without a fully resourced sub-regional component, the gap between the local district level and the regional level is too remote … The Bill should therefore more clearly set out the extent to which county councils must be engaged in spatial planning at the regional and especially the sub-regional level."
  The Government's intention was to simplify planning. However, the Bill may make planning more complex by setting no fewer than four levels of government against each other—regional government, the new sub-regional level, county councils and district councils. Two of those tiers of government seem to have little or no legitimacy in the eyes of local voters, and it has not escaped the House's notice that the Bill increases the already considerable powers available to the Secretary of State.
  Despite all this, I want to end on a positive note by quoting with approval a Minister. At the recent Local Government Association conference, Lord Rooker said:
  "The Bill is not our last word. We will listen to what's said and will be prepared to seek a consensus."
  On the basis of tonight's debate and the points made by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, the Minister must surely be aware that there is no consensus whatever for dynamiting the current planning architecture in which elected county councillors play a crucial part, and replacing it with a system presided over in large tracts of the country—and certainly in the south-east—by those who are less accountable to local voters, if they are accountable at all, and who therefore have less, or no, democratic legitimacy. If Ministers are truly seeking consensus during the Bill's passage, they will achieve it only by reconfirming the statutory planning duties of county councils, rather than by seeking to strip them away. Until and unless they do, I and other Opposition Members will continue to oppose the Bill.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. David Drew: Given the number of Members who wish to speak, I shall try to keep my remarks brief. I do not necessarily share the views of the
  780
  hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) about counties, but during consideration of the Bill some clarification of the new relationships will be necessary.
  I start from the premise that the current planning system is unfair, inaccessible and unpredictable. I do not mind the idea of dynamiting the system, because people are genuinely distressed by it and feel that it needs radical change. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was undoubtedly radical and pushed things forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) made it clear that it put in place the community basis of individual demand. It was right to do so at that time, and we need to reinforce that principle. The regional level makes increasing sense to people, and I see no reason why we should not enforce that through the planning system.
  I want to devote my remarks to the rural dimension. As chairman of the Labour rural group of MPs—I followed my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley)—I know that we must recognise the importance of the rural dimension. We must face up to the fact that there is a crisis in housing provision in rural areas. We must do something about it and learn how to move matters forward quickly. With that in mind, the rural group held a recent seminar at which virtually all the main players in the delivery of rural housing were present, including the Countryside Alliance. Those present were able to display the degree of consensus that exists. They emphasised the importance of planning to the system; along with transport, planning is undoubtedly the major issue in terms of changing rural life for the better. The belief was expressed that parish and town councils have an important part to play, that there is a need to streamline the decision-making process, that we must get more low-cost housing into our villages and market towns, and that we need to recognise the interrelationship of urban and rural areas. However, the difference is that planning in rural areas requires greater sensitivity and a recognition of the scale of the changes. It was also noted that there is much good practice, but that, unfortunately, a lot of it is not being disseminated throughout the system, so something must be done to improve matters. It is in those terms that I shall consider this Bill: does it move forward the rural debate, and, if so, how will that be achieved?
  Urban and rural areas have much in common. Pleasingly, we have a rural agenda, but we need to consider how to bring about brownfield development and the delivery of sequential tests in rural Britain, just as they must be delivered in urban Britain. In the time remaining, I shall briefly consider the Bill's provisions and how they can be delivered in the rural domain.
  I start with the debate about counties and regions. I may not come to bury counties, but I certainly do not come to revive them. There is much to be said for unitary government, which makes sense if we are to form regional assemblies in due course. We already have the economic drive of the RDAs, and that must be enforced through the planning system. We should be honest and open and say that it makes a lot of sense to assimilate policies on minerals and waste to the regional dimension.
  Peter Bradley: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things that attracted people to vote for the establishment of unitary authorities, such as the Telford

  781
  and Wrekin authority in my constituency, was the fact that such authorities would be closer to the community and more responsive in their decision-making processes? By the same token, people felt that shire hall was far too remote from their interests.
  Mr. Drew: That is the point. We are trying to keep in place archaic institutions that bear little resemblance to what people want in local democracy. Structure plans are a thing of the past. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, and he will know that we in Gloucestershire have not had much success with structure plans. The last one had to be rewritten by the inspector because what it proposed was so bad. That is our experience locally, and other areas may have gone through something similar.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. Does he think that the people of Stroud will consider the planning process more or less democratic, given that under the Bill a regional body in Bristol, Taunton or Exeter will determine the regional spatial strategy? That will inform what has to be put into the local development framework plan prepared by his local authority.
  Mr. Drew: I was going to say that I believe that we must make the process more democratic. I am interested not in a top-down process, but in a bottom-up one. There will be evolution, but it must allow public participation. As I shall make clear, the emphasis should be placed on parish and town councils.
  Mr. Truswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important part of the democratic deficit is not so much the removal of county council involvement but the fact that communities and individuals do not have the right to challenge strategic plans at that level?
  Mr. Drew: If my hon. Friend is referring to third party rights of appeal, I am at one with him. A weakness of the Bill is that the Government have not grasped the nettle and taken the opportunity to introduce a proper framework for third party appeals.
  Town councils and, in rural areas, parish councils have a crucial role to play in public participation. Giving them greater capacity will mean that they will have the chance to plan how they want their communities to develop. Responsibility will follow if we are able to give them the necessary powers, and I look forward to doing that with this Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) spoke about third party rights of appeal. I should like such rights to be enshrined in the Bill. In that respect, I disagree with the Government. There would have to be clear checks and balances on the operation of such appeals, but the Labour party embraced the proposal for years in opposition. We supported its inherent fairness and justice, and it is sad that certain people have been able to persuade a Labour Government not to adopt. We should resist that persuasion and do the decent thing. We should see how the planning system could be made fairer by allowing people who feel that they have been treated unfairly by it a right to put across their point of view.
  782
  I very much welcome the fact that repeat applications will not be allowed, and the reduction, from five years to three, in the period for which a planning permission remains valid. I am concerned about how the permitted development rights will operate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say something about that. If we are to give local authorities more powers according to those rights, I want to know exactly how they will operate. Let me also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe that I am not sure how the business planning zones will work. I am not sure that they are not a gimmick rather than a measure that could make a real difference.
  As important as the Bill will be the tremendous funding boost. We all accept that the main problem is a failure to change the mindset of those involved in the planning process owing to underfunding, which may lead to a lack of planning officers or, indeed, stymie people dealing with applications. I hope that using the new funds appropriately will lead to what my hon. Friend described as a step change.
  I am still not sure what will emerge from the changes in the section 106 agreements, and I think that in Committee we must tease out ways of improving the situation. I agree with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) that there are ways in which it could be seen as a form of corruption. We should also think carefully about poverty and social exclusion. I hope that in Committee we can make clear how the less privileged can have better access to the planning process.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Let me begin with an apology. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and I could not hear the opening speeches because we were in the Standing Committee considering the Communications Bill. Not least for that reason, I shall be brief. I shall also try to confine myself to personal observations arising from my involvement in planning, as they are unlikely to duplicate what has already been said and are relevant to one of the main issues.
  There is clearly a theoretical argument to be had about the desirability of regional spatial strategies supplanting the county structure plan as a mechanism for securing strategic planning, but in this context I would prefer not to deal with the theory. We can discuss elsewhere the likelihood or otherwise of the establishment of regional assemblies. I think their establishment extremely unlikely in the east of England, certainly, and I therefore believe that the current democratic deficit and lack of accountability in regional planning is likely to persist for a long time. What is more relevant to this Bill, however—as opposed to the Regional Assemblies (Preparation) Bill—is the question of whether regional spatial strategies will deliver, in practice, speedier and more effective plans. I do not think that they will.
  During the last few years, I have participated in public examination of RPG6 relating to East Anglia. Last month, I spent three days taking part in a public examination of the Cambridgeshire structure plan, which is pursuant to RPG6. One of the perversities of

  783
  the present situation is demonstrated by what was happening during the four weeks in which I—along with many others—considered the plan. The East of England local government conference, which for our present purposes is the planning body, is moving towards the establishment of RPG14, which it thinks may well be one of the first regional spatial strategies produced under the new legislation. During our consideration, the conference produced a document purporting to be a pre-consultation draft document relating to that regional spatial strategy for the east of England—which was quite separate from the preceding RPG6, although intended to carry forward some of its principles. On the face of it, the consultation draft for the regional spatial strategy was not seeking to cut across the county structure plan, which will set the framework for Cambridgeshire for the next 14 years. It said that the sub-regional strategy for the Cambridge sub-region would be as reflected in RPG6 and as determined in the county structure plan. Even the regional spatial strategy is more or less saying that the county structure plan is the right place for that to happen. Of course, that plan will not be there in the future.
  At the same moment, the regional spatial strategy was contemplating scenarios that cut across all that. For example, the local government conference had gone to consultants based in Birmingham—it must have been somewhere outside the region as they did not seem to know much about Cambridgeshire—in order to produce scenarios on how large numbers of new houses could be accommodated in the east of England. One of those scenarios was for a large new settlement on the scale of Milton Keynes. One of the areas of search identified for that was south of Cambridge and in my constituency. People in my constituency, including me, might well conclude that the regional spatial strategy did not understand the nature of what was already happening in terms of a sub-regional strategy for the Cambridge area. At the same time, South Cambridgeshire, which is the district authority responsible for that area, did not even have a representative on the regional planning conference. The distance between those who are affected by this major issue and the body concerned is so enormous as to make it quite unreasonable.
  One of the principal arguments behind the proposal for a large new city is the proposition that there should be east-west rail links and that Norwich, Cambridge, Bedford, Milton Keynes and Oxford should all be linked. Fine, let them all be linked, but the Strategic Rail Authority is pretty clear that the line will not travel along that route and will not go anywhere near the area of search. The pieces of the jigsaw are not being linked together. The regional planning body is transparently so divorced from understanding the nature of how these issues interact in the Cambridge sub-region that it is difficult to see how the regional spatial strategy will ever be anything more than a process by which all the strategies—the waste strategy, the transport strategy, the cultural strategy and the economic strategy—are reflected in the document, with the balances, in practice, being struck somewhere else.
  784
  The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said that this is a dynamic process and that we have to think about how it all works. I agree that it is a dynamic process. Conservative Members are not simply saying that county structure plans are the be-all and end-all because, clearly, there will be sub-regional strategies, such as the one around Cambridge, that ought to include contributions from other local authorities such as Essex, Hertfordshire and even Bedfordshire and Suffolk. All those authorities can be involved. The idea that it will be done by the regional spatial strategy is utterly misleading. It is clear that, in practice, it would be better to work on a reform that is geared to the development of county structure plans in a manner that is able to take account of cross-border issues and to link related strategies. That would be better than trying to work through the regional spatial strategy, the effect of which would be to create a bureaucratic process that would be divorced from reality, subsequent to which sub-regional documents would have to be drawn up that, perhaps on different boundaries, would be akin to county structure plans in the manner in which they tried to integrate the various strategies.
  9.4 pm
  Peter Bradley: I welcome this long overdue reform of the planning system. Before entering the House, I spent years as an adviser to some major developers, advising on their community relations and promoting some significant schemes up and down the country. My job was to help them to ensure that communities were consulted and that, as far as possible, their support for major schemes was secured. I know that the most important issue for the developer and the community alike was certainty. Major development drives economic and, to some extent, social progress. However, many schemes that could have made a significant contribution to the local, regional and national economy stalled because, during the prolonged decision-making process, the market changed, the scheme was no longer viable and the developer had to go back to the drawing board.
  I welcome any move away from the adversarial approach to planning and development towards a more co-operative system in which the developer, the planning authority, elected members and local communities can together secure certainty. Communities that support a scheme need to know whether it will generate jobs from which they can benefit. If they oppose a scheme, they will want to know whether it will have negative impacts—for example, on the value of their homes.
  Communities want certainty about how and when decisions will be made and about their right to information—a point made earlier in the debate. They want the right to participate in and inform the decision-making process. I welcome changes that will improve consultation and participation and, in so doing, remove the blight suffered by communities where development is not welcome and accelerate the benefits where it is.
  We need to go beyond simply changing the system: we also need to change the culture. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)—the name of whose constituency set me the double challenge, first of remembering it and, secondly, of being able to

  785
  pronounce it; I think that I made a reasonable fist of it—mentioned the survey undertaken by the PPS Group that found that planning officers opposed change and thought that the Bill was unnecessary and unwieldy. I wager that whenever members of any profession are consulted about any change to their working practices they come to the same conclusions. Talented, highly skilled and motivated as many planning officers are, and however committed they are to their communities, they need to change their culture. We need to help them to do that. Planners need to get out more. They need to lift their eyes to a further horizon—whatever that means. When I wrote it in my notes I thought that it was a striking phrase.
  Planners should raise their game. Planning should be entrepreneurial as well as regulatory. Too often, we encounter planning as development control that has forgotten that it can play a creative role in our communities. Planners should not merely prevent or control development but look out for opportunities to improve housing provision, generate employment and enhance local services. They should improve the environment as well as conserving it.
  Planning is a potent engine for social change. When I was a member—
  Mr. Drew: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Peter Bradley: I can give way only briefly as I am anxious that other Members have the chance to speak.
  Mr. Drew: There is no better example of the points that my hon. Friend was making than when planners are faced with the redundant barn syndrome. They always want to turn down proposals to develop such buildings instead of seeing them as enabling employment or proper housing in rural areas. Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Peter Bradley: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to deal with that point in a moment.
  I was about to give an example from my experience as a member of Westminster city council during the heady days of Shirley Porter's regime. The Conservatives on the council certainly understood the importance of planning. In promoting their scandalous and illegitimate homes-for-votes scam, they achieved more through the planning system than they ever did through manipulating housing provision and selling off council flats through the designated sales policy.
  Major developments such as Bishopsbridge in Paddington and Westminster hospital, just around the corner in the ward that I represented, did not provide even one unit of social housing, yet such projects could have met acknowledged need in our community. I do not cite those examples to make either a rhetorical or a political point, but there are huge opportunities, especially in commercial centres such as Westminster and the City of London. A force for something that was ultimately unlawful can also be a force for good. We need to return to the concept of planning as a creative engine of social change.
  Let me cite another example of my experience as a member of Westminster city council's planning committee. A plausible policy was adopted to resist the
  786
  development of tall buildings around the royal parks. Most people would accept that that is a very sensible policy, but I think that it is a counsel of despair. We should tell architects that we value sensitive landscape as a precious resource but then challenge them to come up with excellent architecture that will overcome our objections.
  We should challenge planners, architects and developers to extend themselves, meet local needs, devise original schemes and design buildings whose architecture we can be proud of and which will be landmarks for years to come. We should not simply say to them, "I'm sorry mate, but don't even bother to put in a planning application for this site because it won't be accepted."
  I commend the emphasis in the Bill on the rights, interests, needs and participation of communities. I have concerns about rural development, not because I am against it—far from it. I favour development in and for rural communities. The Government have rightly supported parish councils, and £16 million has already been distributed by the Countryside Agency's vital villages programme to develop parish plans. The Government are committed to sustainability, but my plea is that the planning system must help more and hinder less. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made that point in his intervention.
  The biggest complaint that I get from those in the rural part of my constituency—particularly from farmers, as we are urging them to diversify within and beyond agriculture—is that when they go to the planning department with a proposal to develop a redundant farm building or change its use, the planning officer says, "I am sorry; our controls are very strict, so don't waste time and money on a planning application."
  Some businesses that started in farm buildings, have succeeded and are now ready to expand, creating jobs and investment to the benefit of the local community, have their plans stalled before they even get off the drawing board. That problem should not be underestimated. We have to encourage planners in rural settings to understand that, yes, the landscape must be protected, but not always at the expense of the people who live in it.
  I want to touch on an important flaw in the Government's policy on the provision of housing for rural communities. The sequential test is fine in principle, but, in practice, it drives young people from their villages into market towns or, worse still, into the nearest urban centre. It does not arrest that migration from which rural communities have suffered for decades; it drives people further away.
  Earlier today, hon. Members talked about the need for housing needs surveys, and I fully support that principle. Every district council should be required to undertake a housing needs survey, and those surveys may well be supported by the parish council and village community groups because their village needs affordable housing to sustain community life, despite the fact that it has to be built on green fields or in the green belt.
  When young people are driven away from their villages—some go through choice and some because they cannot find jobs, but many go because they cannot find affordable housing—the village shop is undermined

  787
  because there are no customers, the school is undermined because there are no children to go to it and the pub begins a downward spiral towards closure. People are not there to use those facilities. If we provide homes and jobs where they are needed, we begin to reverse that process and, incidentally, we reduce the dependence on public and private transport.
  My plea is that we look at where housing is needed. Let us not drive people to the nearest market town just because that is where the railway station or the motorway connection is. That has a role to play, and we should stimulate economic development in market towns, but not at the expense of the village communities, where people need to live and often have a right to choose to live.
  I am very pleased about the reduction in the life of planning consents from five years to three, and about the bar on repeat applications. We should, however, consider the need to abbreviate the life of planning consents when work has begun on them. That problem is far more widespread than may be recognised, and we need to plug that loophole. We talked about certainty, and people need to know what, if anything, will happen on a site in their neighbourhood. That is an anomaly, and I hope that Ministers have heard the comments of hon. Members and will act to plug that loophole as the Bill progresses.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Mark Hoban: I apologise to both Front-Bench spokesmen for not being present for the opening speeches because of duties elsewhere in the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) mentioned.
  Planning is a major issue in my constituency. It has been a running theme in my postbag since I was elected, and it was one of the key themes in the general election in June last year. It is a major issue because of the way in which Fareham has grown over the last 20 to 30 years: what was once strawberry fields and market gardens is now densely populated housing, particularly in the west of the constituency where I live.
  When I talk to local people about their planning concerns, they do not focus on somebody's extension or putting dormer windows in roofs. Their concerns focus on the density and scale of housing development in an area that is already densely populated. Many local people were given heart by the words of the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) in introducing the Green Paper just over a year ago, when he said:
  "This is a radical change in the way we look at planning. Instead of being led by plans we will be led by people. We want a planning system in which the values of the whole community are allowed to prosper and develop."
  He went on to say:
  "This is a new community-focused approach. It underlines our commitment to giving people a real voice in deciding the future of where they live".
  Those are sentiments that many people in all communities share. People in my community, when asked whom they would prefer to take planning decisions, said that they would prefer county and borough councillors to take those decisions, not regional bodies, and certainly not the Secretary of State.
  788
  It appears from the Bill that the voice of local communities will be strong. We have already heard about the requirement for a statement of community involvement. That sends out a powerful signal to people that they should participate in the planning process. In reality, however, I fear that their voice will not be heard fully. Because of the way in which the planning structure has been changed—with the abandonment of county structure plans and the insertion of regional structure plans—their voice will be diminished. In evidence to the Select Committee in relation to the structure of the plans that will be in place, the County Councils Network said:
  "The system of Regional Planning Guidance—Structure Plan—Local Plan will be replaced by Regional Spatial Strategy—Sub-regional Plan—Local Development Framework—Action Plan."
  Many more layers of plans are being put in place and they will serve to reduce, not strengthen the voice of local people.
  The abolition of the county structure plan and the end of a statutory role for county councils in the development of plans is a great loss, as I do not believe that any regional body set up to give guidance on the spatial plans will in any way represent the needs of constituencies such as Fareham. Any regional body in the south-east, whether elected or unelected, will be dominated by the representatives of the large conurbations—places such as Portsmouth, Southampton or Brighton. The voices of people in constituencies such as Fareham will not be heard loudly enough in the regional bodies. However, those voices are heard very loudly in the county council, where Fareham has six councillors to represent local people. The councillors can express people's views and concerns about how planning has developed in Hampshire and how development should take place.
  Hampshire county council provides an ideal forum for the creation of its own sub-regional strategies. It met the representatives of local councils recently and identified two needs for sub-regional policies in Hampshire. One was in the south of Hampshire, where Fareham is, and the other was in the north, where the county felt that it could work well within the existing structures with Surrey and with unitary authorities in what was Berkshire. There is a framework for local people to feel involved and for sub-regional strategies centred on existing planning structures.
  Mr. Love: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's contribution, which has focused on the needs of local people. However, does he recognise the regional and, in many cases, national dimension, especially in relation to housing? If we do not build houses, we will have house price inflation and rising homelessness. We have to find a balance that reduces homelessness and house price inflation, but allows people to live in sustainable communities.
  Mr. Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that many people raise when talking about housing in the south-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) mentioned it. When we build more houses, all that seems to happen is that more people migrate from the north-east, where I came from, and the north-west to the south. That is not sustainable. Rather than sucking economic development and prosperity out

  789
  of those regions and into the south-east, we should try to ensure that those regions prosper. By continuing to predict housing growth over the next 10 to 15 years, we will create a situation in which more people will come to the south-east and more houses will need to be built. Because the prosperity is in the south-east, more people will still want to move here.
  I have yet to be convinced that regional guidance, housing targets and housing development work. They do not take sufficiently into account the needs of local communities. If we place more emphasis on regional planning, the housing development that the regional planning bodies believe is needed will be pushed into the areas that are not well represented on them.
  Compulsory purchase is another aspect of the Bill, and I wish to raise an issue that relates to my constituency. I refer to the way in which land for compulsory purchase is valued. There is a ransom strip in my constituency that is holding up a major road that could improve the lives of many people in the area. That land is not currently scheduled for development, but its owners have said that, if it is subject to a compulsory purchase order, they will fight to make sure that the land value that they receive reflects not its current worth as agricultural land but what it might be worth if it is used for development. The Government need to introduce more certainty into how land values are calculated for compulsory purchase orders, so that they can prevent landowners from holding communities to ransom by extracting too high a price for their land even if it is not scheduled for development. I am disappointed that the Bill does not move the system any closer to clarifying how we should value that land.
  The right hon. Member for Tyneside, North said that we needed to give people a real voice in deciding the future of where they live. The proposals in the Bill will diminish the voices of local communities in deciding their future. It is right that we should oppose it.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Paul Truswell: I shall truncate my comments drastically, having been robbed of time by my colleagues, and try not to impinge too much on the time left for Front-Bench spokesmen.
  When I first read the Bill, I tried to put myself in the position of my constituents who are interested in and affected by planning matters. I asked myself a few simple questions. First, is the process in the Bill more intelligible than the present system? The answer is probably that it is just as impenetrable unless there is a determined effort to achieve the contrary. Secondly, does it give my constituents further rights to assert their interests? Again, probably not. Thirdly, does it improve their ability to challenge planning applications and permissions that they believe will damage their communities? The answer to that is a firm no.
  I regret the absence of even an attempt to provide a qualified third party right of appeal. However, it is interesting to hear the Conservative party's sudden conversion to that when it did not lift a finger to do anything about it in its 18 years in government. I welcomed the comments of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). They seemed to be an unequivocal apology for the planning system that his Government inflicted on communities, like those that I serve in Leeds.
  790
  Unless drastic changes are made to the planning process, I regret that it may continue to exist in its present form. The problem is that it militates against public involvement, as does the impenetrable jargon, which we could refer to as planning-speak. Perhaps planners and Ministers should be encouraged to take courses run by the Plain English Campaign or involve that excellent organisation when they draw up documents. I am sure that Chrissie Maher and her colleagues would receive that challenge with some relish and, I have to say, planners deserve it.
  My fear about the local development scheme is that it replaces the maze of the unitary development plan with a labyrinth of various documents. It will take a real Theseus, or his female equivalent, to find his way in or out of the labyrinth, with or without a ball of twine. Several references have been made to the simplicity of the Welsh model, and Ministers should take that on board.
  On the statements of community involvement, will the Secretary of State lay down minimum standards or will it be a moveable feast? Can Ministers be more specific about what they want the SCIs to include as a minimum? Part of the problem is that SCIs will be drawn up in conjunction with the rest of the documents in the local development scheme. Although it does not exactly put the cart before the horse, it does put the horse in the cart. If we are talking about generating true, real and dynamic community involvement, surely we need to set the ground rules at the outset rather than as part of the overall process. There is a lovely juxtaposition in subsections (3) and (4) of clause 18. They say:
  "In preparing the other local development documents the authority must also comply with their statement of community involvement…
  But subsection (3) does not apply at any time before the authority have adopted their statement of community involvement."
  That demonstrates my point.
  It also appears that the SCIs do not have a clear status. That indeterminate status means that they will not have the same force as the development plan. Instead, they will be seen very much as guidance. Part of the problem with that is that guidance is much easier to circumvent than something that is laid down in the development plan.
  I have other concerns, which I shall list quickly. I agree with many of the comments on local development orders, statements of development principles and simplified planning zones. Each of those, in their own way, appears to militate against community involvement in, and understanding of, planning processes.
  I shall use the short time left to concentrate on the third party right of appeal. It is clearly unsustainable to argue that local authorities are always right when they grant planning permission, but sometimes wrong when they do not. In the past, Ministers have said that it is difficult to define applications where a right of appeal may operate. What about local authorities giving themselves planning permission? What about permission being granted for a clear departure from a structure plan? What about where an environmental impact assessment is required as part of the process? The

  791
  need for a right of appeal in such cases is clear enough—I do not buy the argument that it is difficult to define exactly where a qualified right of appeal may exist.
  It is simply not enough to suggest that people have redress through a judicial review, as that is expensive and tests only the process, not a decision. I appreciate that much of what I am concentrating on in the few remaining moments is negative, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister accepts that that is born from the frustration of grappling with the planning system on behalf of my constituents for over 20 years and the disappointment that, on the face of it, the Bill does little to make that task easier. However, I still live in hope. We must ensure that the process is engaging and properly publicised. It is important to the public and their need to become involved is crucial. The planning process must have a welcome mat at the door, rather than the combination lock or guard dogs that are sometimes there. If, through regulation or guidance, Ministers can reinvigorate the planning process so that community involvement is a fact rather than something achieved in passing, they still stand a chance of bringing a smile to my face.
  9.31pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for the chance to participate in this important debate on whether the House agrees the Bill's Second Reading.
  This has been a good-tempered debate. Even if attendance in the House is rather thin at the moment, it is worth putting on the record the fact that this will be the last Tuesday on which we will have 10 o'clock vote. Let us hope that modernisation produces a better attendance in the Chamber, as that will be to everyone's advantage. I congratulate, in no particular order, my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on their excellent speeches and pertinent comments.
  Much has been said about the Bill, and it is worth looking at what outside bodies have said about it. For example, the Council for the Protection of Rural England said:
  "This is an unacceptable and unworkable centralisation of strategic planning. The Government wants to take powers from elected county councils and unitary authorities for itself and for remote, unelected regional bodies."
  The Law Society believes
  "that this Bill is a missed opportunity to improve the efficiency of the land use planning system to deliver quicker decision making while preserving the rights and ability of individual members of the public to contribute to that process."
  The CBI says:
  "As the bill stands we don't believe that these proposals will produce a system that better serves the needs of the economy and society."
  792
  Even Friends of the Earth says:
  "The planning system cannot survive an ill-considered reform package which fails to deal with the central issue of fairness and equity. The planning system must have simplicity of structure, and clarity of purpose reflected in comprehensive policy."
  Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Certainly, in a second, because the hon. Gentleman gave way to me.
  It is a remarkable achievement that bodies as diverse as the CBI and Friends of the Earth can condemn the Bill. It is remarkable that the Government have been able to introduce it under those circumstances.
  Andrew Bennett: With which of the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman cited does he agree?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I agree with all of them, otherwise I would not have cited them. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution because, under his chairmanship, the Select Committee did the House a huge service in taking a huge amount of evidence. However, reading his speech, in parenthesis he appears to say that there is nothing wrong with the present planning system that could not be cured by a little amendment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe was right: why dismantle the entire present planning structure and architecture, and replace it with something that is unproven and which, as all those outside bodies said, at best will be much more lengthy, and at worst may not work? We must consider carefully what the Bill will bring about. There is no doubt that it will introduce more complexity, more delay, less democratic accountability and more centralised direction. I shall enlarge on all those themes in due course.
  A number of hon. Members said that the system is not at fault; it needs to be administered by proper professional officers. I declare my interest as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I know that planning officers, many of whom are in my profession, think that they are undervalued. They certainly think that they are underpaid, compared with the private sector. Until we value them and pay them properly, we will not get planning officers of calibre, whom we will certainly need under the new, more complex system introduced by the Bill.
  The Bill introduces the regional planning body and the regional spatial strategies. The Secretary of State will have huge powers over those new unelected regional bodies. He will have to nominate a regional body long before any elected regional assembly comes about, if that ever happens. The Bill centralises the planning system into the hands of the Secretary of State, and huge powers he has. The Local Government Association says of the regional planning body:
  "The Secretary of State can decide if an examination in public into a draft RSS"—
  that is, regional spatial strategy—
  "is required and appoint an inspector who will report their findings to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has additional powers to direct an RPB"—

  793
  that is, regional planning body—
  "to prepare a draft revision of the RSS. Where the RPB fails to act in accordance with such a direction, the Secretary of State may prepare a draft revision or revoke all or parts of an RSS. The Secretary of State has powers to remove recognition from the RPBs and prepare his own RSS for a region."
  If that is not a more complicated and more centralising system, I do not know what is, but it does not end there.
  Not only does the Secretary of State have huge powers to prepare the regional spatial strategy and supervise it; the regional spatial strategy can then inform and dictate the local development framework and document. By that mechanism the Secretary of State is aggregating to himself huge centralising powers under the Bill.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Henry VIII.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: What the Secretary of State does not aggregate to himself through the Bill, he aggregates to himself through order-making powers, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made clear.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), but can he tell the House how centralisation under the Bill differs from the centralisation that the Conservatives bequeathed to the country?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening, or he is deaf, or he is incapable of understanding. I have just read that out to him. I shall give him a little advice. Before he goes into Committee, he had better go through the Bill with somebody who knows what it is all about, then he might understand it a little better. He had better do a bit of boning up.
  There are many aspects of the Bill that I want to cover in the short time available. Apart from the powers over the regional spatial strategy and local development documents, the Secretary of State has powers to order joint development documents to be prepared. He has powers of correction of errors. That is an appalling principle to introduce into a Bill. The power of correction of errors allows for sloppy decision making and drafting. Under the old system, if the Secretary of State or any civil servant got a document wrong, it went to the court. That is the system that we ought to adopt. If the House allows for the correction of errors in primary legislation, we are going down a very slippery slope.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that where we aspired to be Henry VII, the Labour Government have exceeded Henry VIII?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: It is an unfortunate trend, as my hon. Friend says, that every piece of legislation brought in by the Government introduces yet more and yet wider order-making powers into primary legislation. The House is adopting a very bad principle, and we are adopting it with a vengeance in the Bill tonight.
  794
  One could say a lot of things about the Bill. I am very sceptical about the community involvement that it introduces. It is all very well having a statement of community involvement at the level of the local development framework, but there is no such statement at the regional spatial strategy level. Of course, the regional spatial strategy element will dictate to every local authority what it is to put in its local plan. I am very sceptical about that. In Committee, I shall table an amendment seeking to ensure that the regional spatial planning body has some form of community involvement.
  Some very good speeches have been made, and not only from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke very cogently about the system that operates in Wales. I submit to the Minister, as a constructive point, my belief that the system that the Bill introduces in Wales is much simpler than that which it introduces in England. I cannot understand why one Bill introduces two systems, one of which is much better than the other.
  Like other hon. Members, I should like to comment on simplified planning zones. As I said in an intervention, the concept of such zones has been around since the introduction of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. I told the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that only 20 such zones had been designated since that Act took effect, but I was wrong. In fact, only 10 have been designated. I must tell him that if the environmental impact statement in the Bill is applied to such zones, there will probably be even fewer in future, as the hurdle will be so high that it will be very difficult for anyone to overcome it. We will need in Committee to consider very carefully the powers that apply in relation to the zones.
  The Opposition can welcome some parts of the Bill. I welcome the streamlining on listed buildings and conservation areas, some of the powers for dealing with simultaneous applications and the speeding up of the decision process with regard to the provision of eight weeks within which a local authority must determine a decision. If it does not do so, the applicant can appeal and the matter can go to the Secretary of State for determination.
  As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe—
  Mr. Betts rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I was just coming to the hon. Gentleman, so I shall briefly comment on his speech.
  One of the most cogent things that he said was that what is wrong with the current planning system is the time that it takes to draw up the local development and structural plans. In his case, as there is a unitary authority, there will be a unitary development plan. He was absolutely right about that problem, although it could be put right within the current system. I welcome some of the powers in the Bill to streamline and speed up some of the planning process. Without a proper plan, it is very difficult for local planning officers to make the correct decisions.
  Mr. Betts: Having listened earlier to the arguments of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) about the need for significant reform of the planning system, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain to the House precisely what the great reforms that the Opposition would like to see amount to, as his hon. Friend did not do so?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: We would certainly take out of the Bill altogether the whole section relating to regional spatial strategies. We do not believe in regional assemblies, which are a denigration of democracy and take power away from local people. We want the decision-making process to be taken as close to local people as possible. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy gave the game away: in the past 20 years, 120 Bills have been introduced that have taken powers away from local authorities. We want local authorities to be more accountable and want the Bill to make the planning process faster, more accountable and based on good decisions. We want local people to feel that they have some ownership of the Bill and we want the democratic deficit to be rectified. We want people to have a stake in their planning process. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe gave the game away by saying that local people could look at their local unitary plan, but under the new system they will have to go to Leeds, York, Bradford or somewhere else to do so. How will his local people like that?
  When Labour Members were challenged, their concerns emerged. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) did not want his local plan to be dealt with somewhere in Berkshire and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) did not want his plan to be dealt with somewhere in Exeter. I put it to the Government that the whole regional strategy will fail and the Bill will be a mess, because if the regional strategy fails, regional planning will be in the hands of unelected officials. How can they be accountable to local people? Local people will feel alienated from the process, and the turnout at local elections will further decrease.
  If the Government want to introduce a system that is fairer and more accountable, they must put more power in the hands of local authorities—even the few that are left. They must not concentrate power in the hands of the Secretary of State, but ensure that people can understand what is going on in their local planning system. The Bill will do exactly the opposite.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): May I simply say to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that I hope the volume is turned down somewhat in Committee, otherwise we shall be concerned about his health?
  Let me start with some of the basic facts that stand behind the debate. Cascading a policy change through the current hierarchy can take well over a decade. The unitary development plan regime was introduced in 1990, and there are still any number of local authorities without a plan under that system. I am afraid that less than 10 per cent. of local authorities meet all the performance targets for handling planning applications.
  796
  One theme that ran through much of what hon. Members have said this evening is absolutely right, and I said it this morning in the Select Committee: we must achieve, hopefully on a non-partisan basis, a balance between the development control framework and land use policy that the country needs, and the mixture of the concerns about economic development and sustainable communities and the very real concerns that exist in communities that, after all, have to live with the consequences of the planning system.
  We have made it clear elsewhere and I emphasise that the Bill is part of the planning reform agenda. However, it is not the entire agenda. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear, we have a huge agenda to deliver "sustainable communities"—that is everybody's phrase, not just the Liberal Democrats', although they hijack everything that moves. A reformed planning system must be a key part of our strategy for sustainable communities, and the Bill is part of it.
  John McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. McNulty: No. [Interruption.] Let me say purely and simply that my hon. Friend has just got here. He has not been here for the entire day and it is not entirely courteous to seek to intervene in those circumstances.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) spoke at length about welcoming the planning and development grant and about seeking to engage all the professional bodies in order to "skill up", as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said, the professions in the area. They also spoke about seeking to change entirely the planning culture. We are working closely with the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and a range of other bodies to do precisely that, above and beyond simply the planning development grant.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I accept all that the Minister has said and I welcome what he said in that respect, but does he appreciate that the extra resources must go to the planning authorities to allow them to improve their performance, and that therefore the money must be given up front, rather than as a reward if they manage to meet certain targets? It is a very important point.
  Mr. McNulty: As the hon. Gentleman will discover when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister makes his communities plan statement in January, the full details will not be a million miles away from what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  As I said, the Liberal Democrats seek to hijack everything, but it is historical revisionism writ large to compare some tiddly little 1907 town planning Act—
  Mr. Edward Davey: It is 1909.
  Mr. McNulty: I apologise. The Housing, Town Planning etc. Act 1909 cannot be compared with the glory that is the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said, that Act was part of a broad, cross-party post-war consensus.

  797
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish seemed to assume that, this morning, when we were in the Select Committee, I said that every single aspect of secondary legislation would be published in draft before the Bill even goes into Committee. If I did, it was an error on my part. As I have said, we shall try to ensure that as much as possible is published as the Committee unfolds and as the Bill proceeds through both Houses, but absolutely not before the Committee's first sitting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made a thoughtful contribution on the Bill's rural dimension and some useful points about the supposed sanctity of county structure plans. I also accept his point that local development orders can be explored further.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made some interesting points about the Welsh dimension and elements of the Irish planning system's gateway process, about which I know. Although it is not as rosy-tinted as he suggests, it is worth exploring.
  Devolution, with which we have no problem, is the reason for the Welsh differences. I almost believed that the hon. Member for Cotswold wanted to get rid of county councils tomorrow because of his great appreciation of the Welsh system, which is rooted in an all-unitary local government structure. It is therefore far easier to apply the spatial strategy there.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), like others, welcomed the changes to the original suggestions for major infrastructure projects and the compulsory purchase order processes.
  As a near neighbour, I respect the expertise of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who made a thoughtful and reflective speech, which was nevertheless often wrong in emphasis. We will not yet have to change the thrust of section 106 because we shall do that in the new year via a circular rather than through the Bill.
  I know that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has a range of interests in the subject because we had a delightful Adjournment debate on various aspects of the Cambridgeshire green belt. I hope that we can explore that far more in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) delivered an excellent treatise on the substantive logic behind the shift from counties up to regions and down to localities.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Belts) that there is no automatic right to extensive planning permissions after extant consents run out. I will watch with interest as people develop the notion of planning watch wardens running around doing the job of enforcement officers. Perhaps the idea should be explored.
  I would be remiss if I did not at least comment on the Loyal Opposition's amendment, especially some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who opened the debate on their behalf. He described my hon. Friend the Minister's opening comments as an ODPM Christmas carol; the amendment resembles a bad Christmas record such as "Mistletoe and Wine".
  The amendment suggests that the Bill
  "fails to set out a planning framework",
  798
  when that is precisely what it does. It continues by claiming that
  "it introduces the concept of regional spatial strategies".
  The Bill does not do that. The Greater London Authority Act 1999—I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered it for the best part of three months—introduces that concept.
  The amendment also claims that the Bill
  "creates an unclear mechanism of local development documents, principles, frameworks and strategies".
  I point out in passing that much of that has to do with the pleasure of parliamentary counsel. However, the amendment simply refers to a portfolio of specific documents. I do not know how anyone who knows anything about the planning system could make the sort of comments that the hon. Member for Cotswold made.
  The amendment gets better when it states that the Bill
  "provides for the concept of the correction of errors".
  Perhaps the lacuna goes back to 1947, but if the Secretary of State or an inspector in his name currently makes a mistake in a decision letter and writes that 29 Acacia avenue rather than 27 Acacia avenue will be bulldozed, the might of the British state can do nothing about it short of going to court to get the decision changed. The contents of the decision letter prevail in the law, which dates from a long time ago.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Shocking.
  Mr. McNulty: That is by the by. To say that the Bill introduces the concept of correcting errors into the planning system is, with the best will in the world, bonkers. Constructing a principled position around that in a winding-up speech does not work.
  The amendment goes on to say that the Bill
  "abolishes outline planning permission".
  It does not.
  The amendment also says that the Bill
  "fails to clarify the position on planning gains and obligations".
  It was never intended to do that. We made it clear before the Bill's publication that that was not going to happen in terms of legislation. We can sort it out in another context.
  A range of Opposition Members told us that all this is about Henry VIII rather than Henry VII or whatever else. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked the hon. Member for Cotswold how the Bill gives one extra jot of centralising power to the Secretary of State compared with what prevailed under the 1990 or 1991 position. The answer is that the Bill will give the Secretary of State no additional powers—absolutely none. What prevailed under the RPG-UDP regime will still prevail in terms of RSS-LDF.
  We have been told that all this is terribly anti-democratic, but regional planning bodies will be accountable to their regions. Local authority members, who will form the majority, will be accountable to their electorates, but it is right and proper that other representatives should be on the regional planning bodies and accountable to their organisations.

  799
  Under the current arrangements, RPBs receive funding through contributions from local authorities in their region. Subject to parliamentary approval of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, we shall directly fund the RPBs from April 2003 to the tune of £6 million. We are at least considering whether we can make additional funds available through the planning delivery grant.
  To return to what I said to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, we fully appreciate that capacity building inside local authorities must be the thrust of the £350 million for the planning delivery grant. What I said about the education programme and everything else that we are trying to do with the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors goes beyond that. It goes right back to schools and is part of the process of substantive cultural change and the reskilling of what I fully accept has been a denigrated profession over the past 20 years.
  With the best will in the world and the greatest respect to architects, it cannot be appropriate that our education system produces one town planner for every 20 architects. That is not exactly what the market needs.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I asked the Minister to address clause 34 and the new proposals for the inspector in relation to major infrastructure works. Can we have an assurance that there will be no diminution of the planning inquiry structure and that the appointment of an inspector will not bypass or diminish what is, in practice, well-trodden ground? Will the rights of the individual—the small person—to lodge an objection against the big battalions such as BAA be protected?
  Mr. McNulty: I think my hon. Friend will find that he means clause 43 rather than clause 34. He can have that assurance absolutely, and more. The process will be far speedier and far more responsive. Running a series of concurrent inquiries under a team of inspectors rather than under one inspector will make it far more efficient than anything that has gone before.
  We were told that there is some sort of conspiracy and that there is something fundamentally wrong with the compulsory purchase order provisions, but this is what will prevail: landowners will get the market value of their property plus the cost of the CPO process plus the new loss payment. They will not get the new loss payment and nothing else.
  There are those who suggest that the local authorities somehow corrupt the planning process by utilising it for their own planning permissions. There is a clear position on that, which will remain as it is now: no member of the applicant committee can serve on the planning committee to make such a decision. If the application is outside the existing development plan, it is automatically referred to the Secretary of State rather than there being any debate about it. There is no change at all in terms of the Bill.
  There are huge challenges for our planning system, and we on this side of the House are rising to them. I hope that we have a far better discussion in Committee than we are having now. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 321.

  Division No. 30]

  [9:59 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Goodman, Paul

  Allan, Richard

  Grayling, Chris

  Amess, David

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Greenway, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bacon, Richard

  Gummer, rh John

  Barker, Gregory

  Hague, rh William

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hammond, Philip

  Barrett, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Harvey, Nick

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heath, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hendry, Charles

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Hermon, Lady

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Brady, Graham

  Holmes, Paul

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Brazier, Julian

  Howard, rh Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Jack, rh Michael

  Burnett, John

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Burns, Simon

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Burnside, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burt, Alistair

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Butterfill, John

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Lamb, Norman

  Cash, William

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Leigh, Edward

  Chidgey, David

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Clappison, James

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Loughton, Tim

  Cotter, Brian

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Curry, rh David

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maclean, rh David

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Maples, John

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Mates, Michael

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Doughty, Sue

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Mercer, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fabricant, Michael

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Flight, Howard

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Flook, Adrian

  Page, Richard

  Forth, rh Eric

  Paice, James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Francois, Mark

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Randall, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Redwood, rh John

  801

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Rendel, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Robathan, Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tredinnick, David

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Truner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Ruffley, David

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Selous, Andrew

  Watkinson, Angela

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Wiggin, Bill

  Simmonds, Mark

  Wilkinson, John

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

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

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Willis, Phil

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Wilshire, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Young, rh Sir George

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Spring, Richard

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Mark Hoban and

  Streeter, Gary

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caton, Martin

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Challen, Colin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Allen, Graham

  Chaytor, David

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bennett, Andrew

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cohen, Harry

  Berry, Roger

  Coleman, Iain

  Best, Harold

  Colman, Tony

  Betts, Clive

  Connarty, Michael

  Blackman, Liz

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Corston, Jean

  Borrow, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Crausby, David

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cruddas, Jon

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Bryant, Chris

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Burden, Richard

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Burnham, Andy

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Cairns, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Denham, rh John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Caplin, Ivor

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Casale, Roger

  Dobson, rh Frank

  802

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Etherington, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lammy, David

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Fisher, Mark

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Follett, Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Love, Andrew

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  McCabe, Stephen

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gilroy, Linda

  MacDonald, Calum

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonnell, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McKechin, Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hanson, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Heppell, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Heyes, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Merron, Gillian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michael, rh Alun

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mole, Chris

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Moran, Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hutton, rh John

  Mudie, George

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Picking, Anne

  803

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stevenson, George

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Pound, Stephen

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Prescott, rh John

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Purnell, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Trickett, Jon

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Truswell, Paul

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Ruane, Chris

  Ward, Claire

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  White, Brian

  Salter, Martin

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Winnick, David

  Sheridan, Jim

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Soley, Clive

  Southworth, Helen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spellar, rh John

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):-
  The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 182.

  Division No. 31]

  [10:14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bayley, Hugh

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Alexander, Douglas

  Benn, Hilary

  Allen, Graham

  Bennett, Andrew

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Berry, Roger

  Best, Harold

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Betts, Clive

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blackman, Liz

  Bailey, Adrian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Barnes, Harry

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Borrow, David

  Battle, John

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  804

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flint, Caroline

  Brennan, Kevin

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Follett, Barbara

  Foster, rh Derek

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, rh George

  Burnham, Andy

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cairns, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caplin, Ivor

  Goggins, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Challen, Colin

  Grogan, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heyes, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Colman, Tony

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Connarty, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Corston, Jean

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Hutton, rh John

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Denham, rh John

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Etherington, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lammy, David

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Fisher, Mark

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  805

  Lepper, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Leslie, Christopher

  Purnell, James

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Linton, Martin

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Love, Andrew

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Ruane, Chris

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruddock, Joan

  MacDonald, Calum

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McDonnell, John

  McFall, John

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McKechin, Ann

  Sawford, Phil

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheridan, Jim

  McNulty, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Singh, Marsha

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Southworth, Helen

  Spellar, rh John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Stevenson, George

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Merron, Gillian

  Michael, rh Alun

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Miller, Andrew

  Stringer, Graham

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mole, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Moran, Margaret

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mountford, Kali

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mudie, George

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Trickett, Jon

  Olner, Bill

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Organ, Diana

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Perham, Linda

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Picking, Anne

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ward, Claire

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pollard, Kerry

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Watts, David

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  White, Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Prescott, rh John

  Winnick, David

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  806

  Woolas, Phil

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Goodman, Paul

  Allan, Richard

  Grayling, Chris

  Amess, David

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Greenway, John

  Bacon, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Barker, Gregory

  Gummer, rh John

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hague, rh William

  Barrett, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Hancock, Mike

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Harvey, Nick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heath, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Hendry, Charles

  Hermon, Lady

  Brady, Graham

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Holmes, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Breed, Colin

  Howard, rh Michael

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burnett, John

  Jack, rh Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Burnside, David

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Burt, Alistair

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Butterfill, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Lamb, Norman

  Cash, William

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Leigh, Edward

  Chidgey, David

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Clappison, James

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Loughton, Tim

  Cotter, Brian

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Curry, rh David

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maclean, rh David

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Maples, John

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Mates, Michael

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Doughty, Sue

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Mercer, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fabricant, Michael

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Flight, Howard

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Flook, Adrian

  Page, Richard

  Forth, rh Eric

  Paice, James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Francois, Mark

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Randall, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Redwood, rh John

  807

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Rendel, David

  Syms, Robert

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Tredinnick, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sanders, Adrian

  Watkinson, Angela

  Selous, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wiggin, Bill

  Simmonds, Mark

  Wilkinson, John

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

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Willis, Phil

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Wilshire, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Spring, Richard

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Mark Hoban and

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

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

  PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE 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 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill:

  PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE 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 Tuesday 28th January 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 at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
    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 on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Gillian Merron.]
    The House divided: Ayes 353, Noes 142.

    Division No. 32]

    [10:25 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cohen, Harry

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Coleman, Iain

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Colman, Tony

    Alexander, Douglas

    Connarty, Michael

    Allan, Richard

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Allen, Graham

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Corston, Jean

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Cotter, Brian

    Cousins, Jim

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Bailey, Adrian

    Crausby, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Cruddas, Jon

    Barrett, John

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Battle, John

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Dalyell, Tam

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Benn, Hilary

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Berry, Roger

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Best, Harold

    Dawson, Hilton

    Betts, Clive

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Blackman, Liz

    Denham, rh John

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dismore, Andrew

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Borrow, David

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Doran, Frank

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Doughty, Sue

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Breed, Colin

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Edwards, Huw

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Etherington, Bill

    Bryant, Chris

    Farrelly, Paul

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Burden, Richard

    Fisher, Mark

    Burnham, Andy

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Flint, Caroline

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Cairns, David

    Follett, Barbara

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Foster, rh Derek

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Foulkes, rh George

    Casale, Roger

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Caton, Martin

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Challen, Colin

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Chaytor, David

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Chidgey, David

    Gidley, Sandra

    Clapham, Michael

    Gilroy, Linda

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Goggins, Paul

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Grogan, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clelland, David

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hancock, Mike

    809

    Hanson, David

    McKechin, Ann

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Harvey, Nick

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Healey, John

    McNamara, Kevin

    Heath, David

    McNulty, Tony

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    MacShane, Denis

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hendrick, Mark

    McWalter, Tony

    Hepburn, Stephen

    McWilliam, John

    Heppell, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hesford, Stephen

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Heyes, David

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Holmes, Paul

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Martlew, Eric

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Merron, Gillian

    Michael, rh Alun

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Miller, Andrew

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Mole, Chris

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Moran, Margaret

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Hutton, rh John

    Mountford, Kali

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Mudie, George

    Illsley, Eric

    Mullin, Chris

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Jamieson, David

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Hara, Edward

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Organ, Diana

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Perham, Linda

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Picking, Anne

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Kidney, David

    Pollard, Kerry

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Pound, Stephen

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lamb, Norman

    Prescott, rh John

    Lammy, David

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Lepper, David

    Purchase, Ken

    Leslie, Christopher

    Purnell, James

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Linton, Martin

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Love, Andrew

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Rendel, David

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    McCabe, Stephen

    McCafferty, Chris

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Rooney, Terry

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    McDonnell, John

    Ruane, Chris

    McFall, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    McIsaac, Shona

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    810

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Timms, Stephen

    Tipping, Paddy

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Sawford, Phil

    Trickett, Jon

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Truswell, Paul

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Singh, Marsha

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Ward, Claire

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Watts, David

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    White, Brian

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

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

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Soley, Clive

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Southworth, Helen

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Spellar, rh John

    Willis, Phil

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Winnick, David

    Stevenson, George

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Woolas, Phil

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Worthington, Tony

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Stringer, Graham

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Mr. Jim Murphy and

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Mr. Nick Ainger

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Amess, David

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Duncan Smith, rh Iain

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Evans, Nigel

    Bacon, Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Barker, Gregory

    Fallon, Michael

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Flight, Howard

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Flook, Adrian

    Blunt, Crispin

    Forth, rh Eric

    Boswell, Tim

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Francois, Mark

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Brady, Graham

    Goodman, Paul

    Brazier, Julian

    Grayling, Chris

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Burns, Simon

    Greenway, John

    Burnside, David

    Grieve, Dominic

    Burt, Alistair

    Gummer, rh John

    Butterfill, John

    Hague, rh William

    Cash, William

    Hammond, Philip

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Chope, Christopher

    Heald, Oliver

    Clappison, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hendry, Charles

    Collins, Tim

    Hermon, Lady

    Cran, James (Beverley)

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Curry, rh David

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Howard, rh Michael

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Hunter, Andrew

    811

    Jack, rh Michael

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Ruffley, David

    Lansley, Andrew

    Selous, Andrew

    Leigh, Edward

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Shepherd, Richard

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Simmonds, Mark

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Lidington, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Loughton, Tim

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

    Spring, Richard

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    MacKay, rh Andrew

    Steen, Anthony

    Maclean, rh David

    Streeter, Gary

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Swayne, Desmond

    Malins, Humfrey

    Syms, Robert

    Maples, John

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Mates, Michael

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Tredinnick, David

    Mercer, Patrick

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Watkinson, Angela

    Moss, Malcolm

    Whittingdale, John

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Wiggin, Bill

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Wilkinson, John

    Paice, James

    Wilshire, David

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Paterson, Owen

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Pickles, Eric

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Young, rh Sir George

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Randall, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Redwood, rh John

    Mr. Mark Hoban and

    Robathan, Andrew

    Mr. Cheryl Gillan

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE 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 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses of the Secretary of State in making grants in connection with the provision of advice in relation to the planning Acts; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment;

  the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Gillian Merron.]

  The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 130.

  Division No. 33]

  [10:40 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Allan, Richard

  Bailey, Adrian

  812

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Barrett, John

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Battle, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Dawson, Hilton

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Denham, rh John

  Benn, Hilary

  Dismore, Andrew

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Berry, Roger

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Best, Harold

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Betts, Clive

  Doran, Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Doughty, Sue

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Borrow, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Etherington, Bill

  Brennan, Kevin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Fisher, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Bryant, Chris

  Follett, Barbara

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, rh Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burnett, John

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Burnham, Andy

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Foulkes, rh George

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Cairns, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Gidley, Sandra

  Casale, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Challen, Colin

  Grogan, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chidgey, David

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Heath, David

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clelland, David

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heppell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Heyes, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Colman, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Holmes, Paul

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Corston, Jean

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cotter, Brian

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Crausby, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  813

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hutton, rh John

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Jamieson, David

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jenkins, Brian

  Organ, Diana

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prescott, rh John

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Knight Jim (S Dorset)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Lamb, Norman

  Purnell, James

  Lammy, David

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lepper, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Rendel, David

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCabe, Stephen

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McDonnell, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McKechin, Ann

  Sawford, Phil

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheridan, Jim

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

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

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Soley, Clive

  Martlew, Eric

  Southworth, Helen

  Merron, Gillian

  Spellar, rh John

  Michael, rh Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Mole, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Moran, Margaret

  Mountford, Kali

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mudie, George

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mullin, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  814

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  White, Brian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Willis, Phil

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Winnick, David

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Woolas, Phil

  Truswell, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Ward, Claire

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Watts, David

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gummer, rh John

  Amess, David

  Hague, rh William

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hammond, Philip

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bacon, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Barker, Gregory

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hendry, Charles

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Hermon, Lady

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Blunt Crispin

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Boswell, Tim

  Howard, rh Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brady, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Jack, rh Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Burns, Simon

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Burnside, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burt, Alistair

  Knight rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Butterfill, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cash, William

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Chope, Christopher

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Collins, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice amp; Howden)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Maclean, rh David

  Fabricant, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Maples, John

  Mates, Michael

  Flight, Howard

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Flook, Adrian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Forth, rh Eric

  Mercer, Patrick

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Francois, Mark

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Goodman, Paul

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Grayling, Chris

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Paice, James

  Greenway, John

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Paterson, Owen

  815

  Pickles, Eric

  Steen, Anthony

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Syms, Robert

  Randall, John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Redwood, rh John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Whittingdale, John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Ruffley, David

  Wiggin, Bill

  Selous, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Young, rh Sir George

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Mark Hoban and

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 109) (HC15) on Special Grant for addressing the costs of EC Regulation 2037/00 on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Disposal of Refrigeration Equipment) 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Gillian Merron.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITIONS

    Natural Health Products
    10.52 pm
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: I rise to present the petition of Mrs. Angela Norman, who trades in Lymington under the name of the Sweet Joe Pye. Her petition is concerned that EU directives on herbal products will remove people's freedom to treat themselves with a range of traditional vitamins, mineral supplements and herbal medicines by driving a range of products from the market.
    The petition states:
    The petitioner therefore requests that this honourable House requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Palestine
    10.53 pm
    Mr. David Lepper: I rise to present the petition of the Brighton and Hove branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which includes nearly 400 signatures, including my own.
    The petition
    Declares that since the beginning of the second Intifada, 2000 Palestinians have been killed and some tens of thousands injured as a result of Israeli armed forces' and settlers' indiscriminate and excessive use of lethal force; that the UK continues to trade arms with Israel despite Israel's appalling human rights record, its grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and its ongoing occupation and settler-colonization of Palestinian lands; that there are also widespread concerns that British-made equipment is being used against Palestinian civilians, in defiance of UK export criteria; that under article 2 of the Euro-Israel Association Agreement, the EU has the right to invoke sanctions against states with poor human rights records; and that Early Day Motion 1140 has called for an immediate embargo on British arms exports to Israel.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to invoke article 2 of the Euro-Israel Association Agreement and impose an immediate embargo on British arms exports to Israel, to be maintained until Israel ends its illegal occupation and respects all UN resolutions.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Employers Liability Insurance
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]
  10.55 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity of an Adjournment debate on employers liability insurance, which I know is a matter of concern to many hon. Members, as evidenced by the all-party support for early-day motion 146, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter).
  I know that the Government have responded on the issue. The Chancellor covered it in his autumn statement, and the Department for Work and Pensions has an inquiry under way. A separate inquiry is taking place under the Office of Fair Trading. One could ask why we should have a debate, as the Government have set the ball rolling. I seek a debate for two reasons. First, to the best of my knowledge, the subject has not been properly debated in the House, at least in recent times. It is important to put on record what the issues are and the extent to which it is a problem for many of our constituents.
  Secondly, it is important to clarify how the Government intend to handle the investigation that they are conducting, and particularly the overlap between the two inquiries. The Office of Fair Trading is an independent entity; it is not under Government control. It is not clear to me how its work on public liability insurance will overlap with the work on employers liability insurance in the Department for Work and Pensions study, especially as the problems are related. The two types of insurance are often sold as a package by the insurance industry. It is important that we understand how the Government intend that the two inquiries should relate to each other and what end product we can expect from them.
  Like many hon. Members who have become interested in the subject through direct constituency experience, I was not aware that there was a problem until about six months ago, when a constituent came to me. She was a very elderly disabled lady, who used to go every lunchtime to the council's lunch club for pensioners, until the ambulance arrived one day and the driver said that he was under strict instructions not to help her into the ambulance. I wrote an indignant letter to the local council and was told that that was indeed correct. The council was nervous about its insurance policy and the rising cost of insurance, and could not take the risk of its employees suffering back strain by helping a disabled person in those circumstances. I was asked to understand that the insurance issue was technically difficult and that the council had to respect the conditions.
  There are many more extensive problems of that kind. Many small businesses, particularly in the building industry, outdoor pursuits and care homes, face escalating insurance claims. The issue also affects the voluntary sector substantially. Many of us are getting reports that voluntary organisations that run ambulance services face substantial employer liability or public liability claims. The Boy Scouts and Girl Guides have had a big increase in insurance costs for the same reason. To what extent will the voluntary sector be
  818
  covered by the inquiry that the Minister's Department is undertaking or does he envisage it being concerned purely with business narrowly defined?
  The seriousness of the problem is best illustrated not by anecdote, but by some of the figures that are beginning to emerge from the industry. As far as I can establish, there has been an average increase of 30 to 50 per cent. in the cost of insurance over the past year, but some individual companies face increases of 500 per cent., and in some extreme cases, 800 per cent. On average, the increase is substantial—perhaps 30 to 50 per cent.
  More serious even than that are the widespread cases, which are now well documented, of large numbers of companies that cannot obtain insurance at all or try to manage without, which is potentially disastrous for their employees and the wider public. The British Chambers of Commerce carried out a survey that suggested that 9 per cent. of manufacturing companies are not covered by employers liability insurance, although that is a statutory requirement, and that 6 per cent. of all businesses are not covered. A separate study commissioned by the insurance company AXA suggested that about 13 per cent. of all small businesses—210,000 businesses with 1.8 million employees—are not properly covered by employers liability insurance as the law requires.
  Brian Cotter: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because people not having cover is so serious, the Minister should say that the current inquiry is urgent and will be brought to a conclusion sooner, rather than later?
  Dr. Cable: I hope that the Minister will do so. My understanding is that the report will take three months to produce. No doubt, we will be given some confirmation about the schedule and how it relates to the timetable of the OFT inquiry.
  The issue on which we need to make a little progress is why the problem has arisen. Different reasons have been advanced, some of which are self-serving for the interested parties. While reading the literature about the issue, I sensed that a blame culture is developing. The unions tend to blame business for not looking after health and safety, business blames the insurers for ripping it off, the insurers blame the lawyers for their high costs and the lawyers blame us for legislating. There is a tendency to pass the buck back and forth in deciding who is responsible. Without trying to ascribe blame, it is clear that several different factors are involved. It is probably useful to itemise them and ask whether the Minister will conduct as part of the inquiry an analytical study of what is driving this big problem in the insurance market.
  First, the rise of premiums in the wake of international terrorism has affected the reinsurance market and those effects have percolated down into insurance costs generally. A second factor is the collapse of independent insurance, which dealt with the high-risk end of employers liability insurance and accounted for a lot of business. That has clearly affected the rest of the market.
  There is a third factor that I do not fully understand and which the Minister might help to explain. For some years in the 1990s, the insurance industry under-priced

  819
  insurance and it now appears to be trying to catch up. Various theories have been advanced about that. One refers to ferocious competition in the 1990s and another to the systematic under-pricing of products as a loss leader to attract other forms of insurance. It is not clear what happened, but that is one of the explanations given by the industry.
  Furthermore, stock exchange collapse meant that companies could no longer part with their premium income as they did in the bull period of the stock market, and another factor was the emergence of new sorts of risk, especially in relation to illnesses associated with occupation. Big asbestos claims were made, and the emergence of new problems such as strain injury also led to claims.
  Finally and perhaps most importantly—this is not completely clear—the no win, no fee system of litigation emerged. The industry argues that about 40 per cent. of all claims are now accounted for by legal costs. The adversarial legal system that underlies the system of employers liability insurance may well be driving up costs very substantially.
  There are, however, some subsidiary questions that the Government may be able usefully to explore. Has there been a substantial increase in what one might call the compensation culture? The evidence that I have seen is mixed. I think that claims are increasing by about 7 per cent. a year, but one could argue that those channelled through the trade unions have been rising at a fairly stable rate for a very long time and that a change in culture does not explain the sudden jump.
  Another factor could be that no win, no claim insurance is seriously distorting the market and encouraging a system resembling the national lottery in which lawyers and their clients go for big payouts because they recognise—this can certainly apply to clients—that they can afford to lose the case. It is producing inequities in the damages and claims market, and it is loaded with lawyers' costs. Thus a whole set of factors is involved, and it would be useful to know the extent to which the Government inquiry will deal with the no win, no claim problem and whether the legal profession lies behind the escalation of claims.
  What is the Government's role in all this? I do not fully understand the technicalities, but I believe that the Government set the discount rate through the Lord Chancellor and that that, in turn, determines the level at which damages are awarded in litigation cases. Perhaps the Minister would explain whether the matter constitutes a Government policy issue.
  A problem clearly exists. The number of claims is rising by 7 per cent. a year and settlements have increased by some 100 per cent. over five years and a staggering 300 per cent. in a decade. Thus a set of factors is causing massive inflation in litigation costs, which has affected premiums.
  In the remaining few minutes, I want to ask the Minister whether the Government will focus on the big policy issues surrounding employers liability insurance, and liability insurance more generally. To what extent is the insurance industry providing value for money? Will the Government study cover that, or will it be left to the Office of Fair Trading? In his early-day motion, my hon.
  820
  Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare raised issues about the transparency and consistency of the insurance market, and whether insurance companies give sufficient notice. Clearly, there are problems in the day-to-day functioning of the market, and it would be useful to know whether the Government will analyse them or leave them to the OFT.
  Other issues include competition in the insurance market and the packaging of insurance products. Different types of liability are sold simultaneously, making competition more difficult to achieve. Another issue surrounding the operation of the insurance industry is the sharing of information within the industry, and it would be useful to know whether that will be examined. One of the most galling problems for small companies is that they may have a faultless track record and impeccable performance on health and safety and safeguarding their employees, but that is rarely taken into account in establishing premium rates. It would appear that there is nothing comparable to the Co-op insurance market, where good performance is rewarded and bad performance punished. It would be useful for the Government's inquiry to establish whether information sharing between insurance companies could be advanced to make the market work better. In terms of basic insurance principles, it does not appear to work at all.
  A second set of questions concerns different types of illness and injury and whether they should be covered by employers liability insurance. A debate is ongoing as to whether it is reasonable and practical to expect the insurance market to cover diseases as well as injuries and the associated occupational illnesses that have arisen from, for example, asbestos, which is the classic case. That presents special problems for the industry, because claims are made many years after employees have worked and insurance was taken out.
  I can see that, from the employee's standpoint, it is vital that insurance claims are met, and it is right that they should be. Basic causality suggests that insurance applies, but it presents a separate set of problems and I should be interested to know whether the Government will look at the scope of employers liability insurance, and how they propose to deal with the issue. Will they consider, for example, pooling insurance for diseases as opposed to injuries?
  It would be interesting to know whether the Government intend to examine their role in funding. The industry has made various proposals, for example, for the Government to act as an insurer of last resort. They did that, rightly or wrongly, in the case of the foot and mouth epidemic. They have assumed lender-of-last-resort responsibilities in the case of terrorism and, to some extent, in other matters. The industry argues that the model of pool reinsurance, which was used for terrorist insurance, should be used for a wider range of insurance. It suggests not that the Government should subsidise the insurance market but that they should act as an insurer of last resort. It would be useful to know the extent to which the Government are considering that.
  The Government's study lasts only three months and so cannot go into the issues too deeply, but has it considered fundamentally new models of handling employment insurance? There is a strong argument for getting away completely from an adversarial system

  821
  driven by lawyers' costs and moving to one that provides companies with genuine incentives to take good care of their employees, have good health and safety records, and invest heavily in the rehabilitation of people who have had accidents.
  There are models for such an approach. I believe that the German worker compensation scheme is designed so that in the case of accident or disease, payments are awarded according to a basic scale and there is no need for individual litigation. The industry pays a levy that varies according to how individual sectors or even companies have protected themselves against the risk of accident. It would be useful to know the extent to which the Government will undertake such a fundamental examination.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to raise those issues and pose questions. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  11.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate on a subject of growing importance. Employers liability insurance is an essential safeguard for those in work. It provides a means of compensation for those who are injured or made ill at work through the fault of their employer. That measure is well established and has been on the statute book for more than 30 years. The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 requires employers to insure those liabilities.
  The debate is timely because it follows a period of great difficulty for many employers, as the hon. Gentleman said, in securing the insurance, and within a week of the Government's commencing a significant review of the operation of employers liability insurance. I know that hon. Members will not be disappointed if I do not prejudge the outcome of the review and discuss recommendations that have not yet been formulated.
  There are two sorts of workplace compensation in the United Kingdom—employers liability compulsory insurance, which we are discussing, albeit briefly, this evening, and state benefits, principally industrial injuries disability benefit. The first is fault-based and the state system is no-fault-based.
  An employee who is injured or contracts a disease or has been made ill through work can apply for state benefits. However, an employee who believes that the condition arises at least in part from the employer's negligence has the right to sue. If successful, the compensation will be paid from the employer's insurer, with the state recovering from the insurer any moneys paid out in benefit.
  Employers liability compulsory insurance, which is an essential safeguard, requires employers to insure against such liabilities. It is based on two fundamental principles, which the Government continue to stand by: the right of employees to access to justice and the responsibility of employers to fund the cost of their negligence. In a sense, it is the principle of "polluter pays."
  Although it is compulsory for employers to have the insurance, it is not compulsory for insurers to provide it. There is therefore a need to ensure an effective and
  822
  affordable market. We are part of the way through the renewal year, and it is therefore hard to be precise about the scale of difficulties experienced in the market this year. The hon. Gentleman has reviewed the evidence in his own way.
  Industry sources suggest that, on average, employment liability premiums have increased by about 40 per cent. In some sectors, those increases have been much more acute with reported premium increases of several hundred per cent. That has especially affected sectors that have been perceived as having higher health and safety risks, such as the construction industry, and has been felt in particular by small and medium-sized businesses.
  The Government have been monitoring the situation and working closely with trade associations and representatives of insurers and brokers. Our experience suggests that the problems have been largely ones of cost of cover rather than complete unavailability, but it is certainly true that for many businesses affordable cover has become much more difficult to find this year.
  Much has been said about the number of firms going out of business or trading uninsured. Here, too, the accuracy of figures is difficult to assess. I have seen reports in a survey commissioned by AXA of large numbers of companies trading uninsured, but the scale of those figures, based on the extrapolation of a much smaller survey, contrasts with our own enforcement evidence and information from other stakeholders.
  The Health and Safety Executive enforces employers liability compulsory insurance. Traditionally, that has been a small part of the executive's work, because compliance has been high, but it is important to emphasise that employment liability insurance has been cheap in the United Kingdom—about 0.25 per cent. of total payroll compared with 1.5 to 2.5 per cent. for compensation schemes overseas. Indeed, until recently some insurers were selling employment liability insurance as a loss leader—an attractive part of a wider package of other insurance such as motor cover.
  The latest Health and Safety Executive figures suggest that compliance remains high. Between April and September this year, its workplace contact officers contacted 4,366 small and medium-sized businesses, but those contacts required statutory action in just 14 cases. The work of the executive's general inspectors resulted in a further 30 such incidents over the same period.
  On average, there have been five prosecutions a year for the past five years, and four so far this year. However, a British Insurance Brokers Association survey suggested that several hundred firms had either gone out of business, citing insurance costs as the reason for the company failure, or were trading uninsured. Trade associations have reported similar figures.
  While we by no means accept that there has been a general market failure, we are not complacent about the real difficulties faced by business in tough trading conditions; nor are we complacent about compliance. I must be clear: it is totally unacceptable for any firm to trade uninsured. The penalties are high—up to £2,500 a day for failure to insure—but, beyond that, trading in such a manner removes the protection to which employees have a right, throws back the costs of that firm's negligence to the general taxpayer and creates an

  823
  illegal commercial advantage over other competitors that have decided to act responsibly—the great majority, of course.
  I hope the House agrees that, as we endeavour to work through the problems in the employer liability market, we must also be firm about enforcement of the existing law. Stakeholders have suggested a number of factors that may explain this year's difficulties. The hon. Gentleman also outlined his own analysis. May I outline ours?
  The traditionally cyclical insurance market has been "hardening"—a process exacerbated by the consequences of the attacks on the World Trade Centre. That has led insurers to look much more closely at the extent to which claims are being covered by underwriting income. Employment liability has traditionally been written at an underwriting loss. Premium income in 2001 was about £1.1 billion while claims totalled over £1.5 billion. Such losses have been offset by returns from investing the premium income on the stock market, so the sharp downturn in stock market performance has compounded the problem, we believe.
  The collapse of two leading insurers in this market has tightened the market and caused those remaining to look hard at the risks of their business. The result has been a sharp transition in premium prices as the market has adjusted from its traditionally cheap basis to one that now bears the commercial cost. That has come with little warning, and consequently there has been little opportunity for businesses to adjust to these new and sharply imposed costs. Insurers and brokers have suggested that this year represents a market correction. They do not expect premium increases to be as acute next year, though conditions will remain tough. We will continue to monitor the situation.
  There are no short-term fixes, but this year's difficulties have also served to highlight a number of underlying or longer-term questions about the system. The Government take concerns from stakeholders seriously when we hear them. We want to ensure that our system of workplace compensation is efficient, sustainable and fair. For that reason, the pre-Budget report signalled our intention to review the operation of employers liability insurance. The start of the review and its terms of reference were announced in a statement to the House last week by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work.
  We are working closely with those responsible for the review by the Office of Fair Trading. The two exercises are different. The OFT study will encompass public product liability, professional and employers liability insurance, but it will not examine employer liability in the same depth or consider the same range of issues as
  824
  our inquiry will. The OFT's work will be wider ranging than our review and will complement it. The OFT has discussed its draft terms of reference with our Department, and will remain in close contact with us and other key Departments.
  I understand the point about the voluntary sector. We have already discussed this issue with our colleagues in the Home Office, which is the lead Department for that sector. Our review is about employer liability rather than general public liability, but we take on board the important issue about the voluntary sector.
  We need to be careful. The system that we have in place has worked well for many years. It has provided cover for employees and, historically, has not been a burdensome cost on employers. The speed of transition this year has been painful, but UK costs remain competitive with those abroad. Many overseas systems, which are also facing difficulties, are beginning to adopt some of the characteristics of the UK approach. However, as I have emphasised, it is clear that aspects of the present system that have been raised by stakeholders and by the hon. Gentleman are well worth examining. A key question is whether employer liability is commercially sustainable in the longer term.
  We also need to examine the extent to which the £2 billion per annum going into workplace compensation actively contributes to effective outcomes. Do those costs give employers the incentive to manage health and safety more effectively? Do insurers discriminate between good and bad performers? Does the compensation that is paid do all that it might properly to rehabilitate those affected back into work, returning them to economic and social activity? Those are all important questions.
  Mr. John Burnett: I hope that the review will consider the huge extension of conditional fee agreements. For the first time, lawyers have a big interest in the outcome of litigation.
  Malcolm Wicks: We seek evidence from all those with an interest in this matter. We will review all factors that have led to the present situation.
  I do not want to draw conclusions on any of these issues now. We have established the review to undertake that task, and Ministers will look hard at its findings when it reports next spring. In the final analysis, the single most sustainable approach is one based on good health and safety. The more effectively employers manage health and safety the fewer claims there will be. That has to be the best outcome for all concerned.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o' clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Zimbabwe
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin]
9.30 am
Mr. Andrew Mackay: I start by saying gently to the Minister that it is disappointing that we have to have a debate on Zimbabwe in Westminster Hall. You will recall, Sir Michael, that many of us have called regularly on the Leader of the House to arrange for the Foreign Secretary to give a regular statement on the Floor of the House on the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. I believe that the Foreign Secretary gave us such an undertaking six or nine months ago, but sadly it has not been fulfilled. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and point out to the Foreign Secretary when he next speaks to him, as no doubt he will later today, that it would be helpful if the whole House could cross-examine him on the Floor of the House on the situation in Zimbabwe.
I intend to stress three separate points—the current position in Zimbabwe, the response to that position, and, most important, where we go from here. The situation in Zimbabwe is dire. During the year, there have been two dreadfully flawed elections: the general election in March, and local elections on 28 and 29 September, which were so deeply flawed that it was clear that thugs from ZANU-PF were telling local tribal leaders that there would be no food if they did not ensure that ZANU-PF's canvas won in their areas. There has rarely been an occasion in a so-called democracy when food has been used as an electoral weapon. That is disgraceful, and should be placed on the record.
You will also recall, Sir Michael, that Zimbabwe was formerly the most successful country in Africa. It is no longer so, due to a systematic destruction of its economy and institutions. The currency is completely debauched, and the only way in which many people survive is by obtaining hard currency from relatives abroad.
It is worth pointing out that real problems have arisen during the past week that will continue until Christmas as relatives return, especially from Botswana and South Africa. They are being treated most brutally at the border; their hard currency is being taken from them and, no doubt, is corruptly going into the hands of officials and Ministers. For many of those people, that money was the only way their families were going to survive.
There is a desperate food shortage, which cannot be excused solely on the grounds of the drought. There have been droughts before and there will be droughts again in sub-Saharan Africa. Until now, the commercial farms have coped extraordinarily well with droughts, as have the grain distributors. In other words, grain has been put away in good times to see the country through the droughts and the difficulties. However, that is not
172WH
happening now. Indeed, no proper farming is going on. Grain has been sold on the black market to the obvious benefit of Government officials, although a large part of the country is starving, and the World Food Programme has recently said that it does not believe that it will be able to cope with feeding the population.
The tragic figure, which unfortunately is true, is that 75 per cent. of the population of Zimbabwe now lives in poverty. That would be an extraordinarily high level anywhere in the world, but for a country that was once prosperous, successful and a food exporter, it is shocking and disgraceful.
The international response can best be summed up as too much bark and too little bite. We and other western countries have talked a good war, but have done precious little. Some critics would say that the bark has been counter-productive in Africa and the lack of bite has been counter-productive in bringing ZANU-PF to heel. However, if that has been our response, the lack of response within Africa has been devastating. That has damaged perceptions of southern Africa and weakened the promising but embryonic New Partnership for Africa's Development—NEPAD—and the African Union, which I believe everyone in this Chamber supports. The lack of response also has an adverse effect on investment, not only in Zimbabwe but throughout southern Africa.
I hope that leaders elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, perhaps particularly in South Africa, will reflect on this debate and the fact that the continuing deterioration of the situation in Zimbabwe and the lack of regional action are harming not only the people of Zimbabwe but the whole of southern Africa. We, and to a greater extent they, will have to live with the consequences.
Enough of the current situation and the inadequate responses to date. Let us now try to be positive and see what we can do to help. Our prime objective must be to isolate ZANU-PF in every possible way and make life so uncomfortable for that party that its evil regime will be unable to function in future. It is a regime, not one man, although it is easy to demonise Robert Mugabe—he is bad; he is evil. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said on the Floor of the House last week, he is comparable with Milosevic and other dictators who abuse human rights.
However, the corruption has spread much wider. The whole ZANU-PF apparatus is corrupt. The senior civil service is corrupt. Much of the commercial world that remains in Zimbabwe is corrupt. Above all, the army is not only brutal but extremely corrupt, as we saw with the recent rape of the Congo, which was hugely to the financial benefit of senior army officers, who pillaged diamonds and other reserves. So what do we do about that? The most important thing is to enforce existing sanctions more rigorously and ensure that they are renewed in February.
Travel is a sensitive issue, as the sanctions include a restriction on ZANU-PF leaders travelling. It causes great hurt in and outside Zimbabwe that senior Ministers and other thugs attend meetings in Europe and elsewhere. We are told that that is because of international law, as they are attending United Nations-sponsored conferences, for example. I am not satisfied with that, and we should pursue it further. However, when these wretched people attend a conference they

173WH
should be completely restricted to it. The moment that they step outside the conference, except when returning to the airport, they should be deported. They should not be allowed to use attendance at a conference as an excuse to wander up Oxford street and Jermyn street to buy all they want with their looted proceeds, and they should not be able to visit friends and family. To put it bluntly, they should be harassed from the moment they arrive to the moment they leave.
I call for an expansion of the list of those targeted to cover the commercial supporters of the regime in Zimbabwe, who so far seem to have got off completely—the bankers and those who front ZANU-PF's economic interests, including safari operators. Many of those people are white and they benefit hugely from the regime. I hope that when the sanctions are reviewed their travel will be restricted. We know what type they are. Who was the most prominent supporter in this country of the Mugabe regime? None other than Mr. Nicholas van Hoogstraten, one of the most dangerous, vicious crooks that this country has seen, an evil man who is now behind bars and will be for a long time. That is the quality of the backers and supporters of the Mugabe regime.
The sanctions should be further expanded to include another layer of politicians and civil servants, including ZANU-PF Members of Parliament and senior civil servants, who must be subject to the same restrictions as Ministers and Army leaders. I encourage the Minister also to ban their immediate families from travelling, including children and relatives who are being educated in the west. Some will say, "Ah, if we educate these people they will see that western democracy works, so they should be excluded from such a ban," but I do not believe that that will happen. I am convinced that money looted from Zimbabwe, which should go into state education in that country, is instead going into private education in the United Kingdom, America and elsewhere, and that is morally wrong. We should make it absolutely clear that no members of the family of anyone on the sanction list, including the commercial backers, will be allowed any form of education in this country.
I single out one person about whom I would appreciate a response from the Minister. Like me, he will have read a recent article in The Sunday Times about an evil thug called Chris Pasipamire. It is wrong that he came to this country as a student and his deportation, if it is not already under way, should take place very shortly indeed.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the question of sporting sanctions? Does he support a call to the England cricket authorities for England not to play its world cup matches in Zimbabwe next year, as do many Labour Members?
Mr. Mackay: That is my next point, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed by what I have to say.
174WH
It is important to extend sanctions a stage further, so that whenever anyone who has been involved in human rights abuses and torture enters the jurisdiction of the civilised world, they are arrested under the international convention against torture. Incidentally, in the obscene league table of human rights abuses around the world, Zimbabwe is near the top of the premier division. I am disappointed that we have not yet seen any arrests. As the Minister will be aware, under that convention, people can be tried outside Zimbabwe. In other words, we arrest, we detain, and, if the person is found guilty, we imprison them for a long time.
I have files, as no doubt the Minister does, containing detailed cases of torture of anyone in Zimbabwe who holds an independent view, particularly members of the Movement for Democratic Change. Those cases are horrific to read. It is essential that there are arrests, prosecutions and convictions under the international convention soon.
I will make a final point about sanctions. I hope that the Minister and the Prime Minister will mount a campaign to expose the extent of stolen assets from Zimbabwe in countries that have declined to participate in an asset freeze. Let us start embarrassing the many countries that are happy to make a quick buck by taking that tainted, dirty money. I also suggest to the Minister that the United States has performed well below the standards that we have come to expect from the world's leading democracy. The bureaucracy in the USA has been so inept that it has still not imposed an asset freeze on any of the funds from Zimbabwe that are there. I find that inconceivable. The USA, with the European Union, should be taking the lead, rather than being a laggard. I hope that pressure can be put on our US allies and friends.
There are two other areas in which I believe that we should take action. The first is the dire food shortage in Zimbabwe. People are dying in huge numbers, and the situation is worsened by the AIDS epidemic, which is weakening people and making them more susceptible to the food shortage.
As the Minister will readily acknowledge, food is being given only to supporters of the regime. The areas that backed the Movement for Democratic Change in this year's election are being starved, and the nongovernmental organisations cannot always get through to those areas. The Zimbabwean Government systematically try to stop any food getting through. I urge the Minister to arrange, with our allies and partners, an international airlift of food to the isolated regions that voted for the MDC, which are facing a real humanitarian crisis. That is a matter of urgency.
My final suggestion follows from what the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) just mentioned. In general terms, I have always opposed mixing politics with sport. It is not healthy or positive and it is in nobody's best interests. However, there are always exceptions. I very much back the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), which is on today's Order Paper calling for the International Cricket Council to think again about moving the world cup from South Africa to Zimbabwe. As the hon. Member for Harrow, West pointed out, this is a bipartisan issue. I should like to single out one other person for praise. The MEP

175WH
Glenys Kinnock has organised an excellent campaign within the European Parliament to ensure that pressure is put on the ICC.
If the world cup goes ahead it will legitimise an evil regime. Mugabe is the president of the Zimbabwe Cricket Union. I have no doubt that the sportsmen, officials and sports journalists who attend a world cup in Zimbabwe will be extremely well treated and well fed. They will see no problems or demonstrations and good cricket will be played, if that is possible with our present England team. That is not enough. It will do huge damage to cricket's reputation. It will condone evil. I hope that the Government are putting every possible private pressure on the ICC.
If the ICC does not agree to move the world cup from Zimbabwe to somewhere else—there are plenty of other places that would host it, or it could stay in South Africa—I hope that pressure will be put on our cricket team not to go. If that does not happen, it will send out a bleak message that cricket is more important than human rights, more important than torture and more important than starving your enemies to death, and that we live in a happy little complacent world where we can play cricket and all is well. It will do the great sport of cricket immense harm. I hope at the very least that our team will withdraw.
We need to do more. Many of us were disappointed yesterday when we listened to the Prime Minister in the Chamber giving what was, rightly, a very positive statement on the Copenhagen summit. It was an historic occasion with so many central European countries, free of the Soviet yoke, coming into the European Union. It was a great day. But there was no mention of Zimbabwe. There was no suggestion that high on the agenda in Copenhagen was a debate about what further action should to be taken by way of sanctions or other means against the Zimbabwe regime.
Many of us cannot help but feel that there is boredom and fatigue among western Governments. There is the crisis in the middle east. There is the war on international terrorism. There is the issue of Iraq. Therefore, Zimbabwe drops down the agenda. We will be judged very badly if we let black Africa down in the way that we would not have dreamed of letting the white Balkans down, where there was positive intervention against a similar evil and corrupt regime. I urge the Minister and the Government, their partners in the EU, their American allies and others to do more and to do it quickly; otherwise, we shall have even more blood on our hands.
9.54 am
John Barrett: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on securing this morning's debate. He has done us all a service by once again drawing to the attention of the House the plight of Zimbabwe and the suffering that so many people will have to endure throughout Christmas and beyond. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to you and other hon. Members for being unable, as a result of other parliamentary engagements, to be here for the summing-up speeches. However, I will in tomorrow's Hansard read with interest the contributions that I have missed.
176WH
The International Development Committee, of which I am a member, is holding an inquiry into the food crisis facing southern Africa. As part of that, we have examined the appalling humanitarian emergency that has developed in Zimbabwe. It is important for hon. Members and the public to appreciate that the ongoing problems of Zimbabwe have had repercussions extending far beyond its own borders.
Zimbabwe was once described as the bread basket of Africa and has traditionally been a net food exporter to its neighbour countries. However, many changes have arisen and the country now has the highest food aid requirement of any country in southern Africa. At the peak of the crisis, more than 6 million of its people—almost half the population—were in need of food. Up to next March, the country requires some 705,000 tonnes of food aid. That is a disturbing and tragic turnaround for Zimbabwe, and it has rightly caught the attention of the international community.
I accept that not all of the blame for Zimbabwe's food shortage can be attributed to Robert Mugabe and his regime. This year the country faced one of its worst droughts for 20 years. However, the political turmoil and land reform over which Mugabe has presided have served only to make an already appalling problem even worse. By removing so many white commercial farmers, he has contributed to the reduction of his country's maize production to a quarter of its customary level. Without food exports from Zimbabwe, more people in countries such as Malawi and Mozambique are now also starving.
My recent discussions with the Zimbabwean high commissioner confirmed what had previously been reported—abandoned farms are now owned by friends of Mr. Mugabe, and local people are unable to run them effectively because they lack expertise and, following years of employment at bread-line wages, capital.
The famine is now being exacerbated by the stranglehold of HIV/AIDS—a disease that has a grip on the whole region. According to Oxfam and Save the Children, 33 per cent. of adults in Zimbabwe are now HIV-positive, the third highest figure in the world. The stigmatisation of those living with the disease has left many in Zimbabwe refusing to be tested. A recent report suggested that as many as 90 per cent. do not even know that they are infected. With levels of detection so low, the true level of infection must be much higher. How can the war against HIV/AIDS be won when we do not know where the enemy is?
I am not belittling the money—according to answers to my parliamentary questions, some £7 million—that the Department for International Development has contributed towards the funding of the voluntary counselling and testing centres. I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State share my passion to tackle HIV/AIDS. However, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that we have a long way to go before we can say that the fight is being won.
Part of the blame for the scale of the HIV/AIDS problem in Zimbabwe can also be attributed to the policies of President Mugabe and his regime. His fast-track land reform policy resulted in a huge movement of people, forcing changes to family units. As many NGOs have reported, such population mobility has only added to people's vulnerability and potential for acquiring

177WH
HIV. Mugabe has done nothing to tackle the marginalisation of people suffering from the disease. As if that were not enough, evidence suggests that people infected with HIV/AIDS find it even more difficult to access food aid because of stigma, impaired mobility and ostracism.
The AIDS profile research undertaken by the AIDS policy research centre at the university of California recently produced a report that described how HIV is seen in Zimbabwe as the disease of shame. People who suffer from HIV there are often treated with contempt and described as immoral, leaving them unable to access decent care and treatment services.
The politicisation of aid distribution, which has already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bracknell, is well documented. The channelling of food aid away from HIV sufferers urgently needs addressing. HIV has left a scar on Zimbabwe that is likely to take many years to heal.
As a result of the AIDS-related deaths of parents, it is now commonplace for grandparents, or even young children, to be looking after households of 10 children. Those deaths mean that knowledge and skills are not being passed from one generation to the next, leaving orphans to head households and to farm with minimal experience of agriculture. The impact of that on Zimbabwe's ability to fulfil its future security needs is considerable, and has created a long-term problem for which a long-term strategy is required.
The tale of Zimbabwe is tragic. A great deal of excellent work is being undertaken by the Department for International Development, and by NGOs on the ground. I pay tribute to their efforts, especially during the coming months. President Mugabe has created a broken country and has left the international community to pick up the pieces. Little or no hope exists for the future of many citizens of Zimbabwe, and they look to the international community to provide some. We, here, can and must respond to that challenge.
10.1 am
Tony Cunningham: I did not intend to speak in the debate; I intended merely to listen to what was said. I give credit to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) for giving me this opportunity to speak. I have an interest in the subject because the high commissioner in Zimbabwe is one of my constituents. I begin by paying tribute to him and all the staff in the high commission in Harare for the tremendous work that they continue to do in difficult circumstances.
I might differ from the right hon. Gentleman on the tactics that could be used and actions that could be taken, but I hope that all Members share an absolute abhorrence of what can only be described as a barbaric regime.
This man Mugabe is a dictator. He did not win the election, at least not freely, and it is difficult to deal with a situation in which it appears that the prime objective of a country's ruler is to destroy his country. It is difficult to put in place sanctions. With a normal, responsible leader—even a normal, responsible human being—pressure can be applied by saying that unless they
178WH
behave themselves, we will do this or that. However, Mugabe wants the destruction of his country so it is difficult to put pressure on him to do otherwise.
Mugabe keeps going on about the need for land reform. I should like to put it on record that successive British Governments have supported land reform. We have tried to go down a legal route to give people—the Africans in Zimbabwe—an opportunity to own their own land. We must pursue a legal route, not a route that includes the barbaric treatment that many farmers are having to suffer in Zimbabwe.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell talked about positive action and made a comparison with the situation in the Balkans. I should like to think that this Government are doing a great deal in terms of positive action. I should not like to think that it is suggested that military action should be taken against Zimbabwe.
Mr. Mackay indicated assent.
Tony Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman is nodding. I should not want those outside to get the impression that there will be military action. We need to do everything that we can to bring down the dictator. He is there illegally, he cheated in the election and he is creating a huge amount of suffering not only in his own country but around the rest of southern Africa.
I hope that the British Government are doing everything that they can to freeze assets and to impose sanctions. I should like to see more action from other southern African countries. It is important that we get a consensus across Africa because it is in the interests of all African countries to make sure that such an abhorrent dictator does not succeed. His reign should be brought to an end as quickly as possible and Zimbabwe should have a truly democratic Government, which would mean that we could start to deal with problems such as AIDS and food aid.
10.5 am
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay). He made a thoughtful speech, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's responses to some of his comments. The contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) was also opportune, given his Select Committee experience.
I shall amplify my intervention on the right hon. Member for Bracknell, and I want to use the debate to put a little more pressure on the English cricket authorities and the International Cricket Council over their continuing plans to play part of the cricket world cup in Zimbabwe next year. I am at a loss to understand how anybody could contemplate playing international sport in that country at a time when such destruction is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) said, being wreaked on the people of Zimbabwe by their own Government. My hon. Friend was right to say that successive British Governments, and in particular this Government, have supported land reform and have offered to help finance it, only for those efforts to be rebuffed by the leadership in Zimbabwe.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell was right to say that in general politics and sport should not be mixed, but it is difficult to stand aside and pretend that cricket

179WH
can be played at a time of such damage when so many people in Zimbabwe are being deliberately starved and being made to pay a price for taking part in democratic elections.
Tony Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend draw a distinction between the England cricket team going to Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans going to international competitions in other parts of the world? For example, we welcomed the Zimbabwe team to the Commonwealth games in Manchester.
Mr. Thomas: I understand that a distinction can be drawn, and it is probably true to say that most Zimbabwean sportsmen and sportswomen have no truck with the regime in their country. We have reached a point, however, at which we have to contemplate Zimbabwe's sporting isolation. I was not entirely comfortable with the participation of Zimbabwean sportsmen and women in the Commonwealth games in Manchester, although on balance it was right that they participated.
I felt very uncomfortable when the England cricket team toured Zimbabwe two years ago; I thought that it was wrong at the time and I said so. It would be entirely unjustified for England to go ahead with matches in Zimbabwe. If the ICC is not prepared to move the games scheduled to take place at Harare and elsewhere, the English cricket authorities should show some leadership and refuse to play in the area.
It is right to say that we work with other southern African Governments to put pressure on the leadership in Zimbabwe, and to ascertain how we can freeze assets. There are more important ways than through sport alone in which to put pressure on Zimbabwe and ZANU-PF, but those of us with an interest in sport believe that it can add its voice to that pressure. I hope that we shall see leadership by the English cricket authorities and the ICC and that world cup matches will not be played in Zimbabwe next year.
10.10 am
Mr. Michael Moore: This has been an important debate, which rightly focuses our attention on one of the continuing disgraces in Africa and elsewhere. I add my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on securing the debate. I endorse the point that he made at the outset that it is shame that we are forced to discuss Zimbabwe in Westminster Hall instead of having the opportunity to discuss it in Government time in the main Chamber. Perhaps the Minister will give some consideration to that and the various pleas that have been made to the Leader of the House for a debate in the House when it returns in the new year.
We have heard a range of contributions, which have rightly focused on the chronic situation in Zimbabwe. There is a consensus that all of us need to focus on a proper response. The economy is dire with inflation of well over 100 per cent., according to some reports; unemployment is more than 60 per cent.; starvation is rife; and the situation is exacerbated by a fuel crisis that
180WH
is bringing the country to a halt, with the latest negotiations between it and its fuel supplier, Libya, apparently running into problems.
Mr. Hugo Swire: I wonder what conclusion the hon. Gentleman draws from the latest reports from Zimbabwe that Mugabe is considering sequestration of the assets of some western oil companies in that country, and what implications that will have for the long-term future of Zimbabwe's economy.
Mr. Moore: The reports, which I have also read, are alarming and show the truly desperate situation that Mugabe has put himself into. It is a downward spiral in a country which, over a short period, has gone from being one of Africa's beacons and one of its wealthiest countries to a position in which almost anything of any good has been thrown away. I do not believe that Mugabe will solve his problems by nationalising foreign oil assets.
The state of the famine must be the focus of our humanitarian concern. When organisations such as the World Food Programme are forced to withdraw from their work in the south of the country, when there is widespread abuse of the aid that arrives in the country because it is being channelled by Mugabe only to his supporters and when almost 50 per cent. of the country's population are suffering starvation, that regime must at some point recognise its responsibilities. We are not arguing that the situation is solely Mugabe's fault, but the measures taken by him and his regime over a period of years, most notably in the past year, have undoubtedly exacerbated a dreadful situation and made the prospect of Zimbabwe finding its own way out of this particular mess very unlikely.
The famine has been made worse by the suffering that HIV/AIDS has caused many people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said. That has happened in a wider situation that Mugabe has largely foisted on to his own country by his decisions. All observers outside the country and many inside believe that he cheated in the presidential election earlier this year. The most recent regional elections, too, are deemed to have been unfair and corrupted. The leader of the opposition party is under arrest for treason because he dared to provide opposition to the President, as he calls himself. The latest twist is the delaying of that treason trial into the new year. The regime is characterised by brutality and repression and, with every passing month, marches further beyond the acceptable limits of international states and their standards.
We learn today that, after months of negotiation and many false dawns—I hope that this is not another one—peace has been declared in the Congo, where Zimbabwean forces and commercial and other interests have played a major role. There is now the prospect of unpaid and undernourished armed forces returning to Zimbabwe, further complicating the situation there. The prospects are not good and it looks as if the downward spiral can get only worse.
In response, there has been much international wringing of hands and concern about what should be done. I hope that the Minister's reply will focus on some

181WH
of the issues for which Britain has a particular responsibility. Recent reports that existing arms embargoes have been flouted by the supplying of spare parts for the Hawk jets used by the Zimbabwean air force are especially alarming, and we need to know the extent of government investigation into that, and the action that is to be taken.
Further afield, we had many months of difficulty in persuading all Commonwealth nations that Zimbabwe should be expelled or suspended from councils in the short term. That was achieved in March, but recent discussions by the troika of Australia, Nigeria and South Africa have demonstrated that there is no consensus about how progress should be made. The hard-fought victory earlier this year, which the British Government played a part in achieving, is now in danger of being lost, and all the political advantage gained from the March suspension with it.
Other hon. Members have commented on the existing travel bans. I agree with the right hon. Member for Bracknell that it is a shame that the United States of America has not been more robust and focused on the imposition of smart sanctions. Likewise, we have seen in the European Union the casual flouting of travel bans by other members of the regime. Protection under international law for attendance at United Nations and other meetings must be respected but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we must ensure that such attendances in Europe are properly regulated and monitored, not abused—which would give rather inelegant signals to the international community.
The United States has suggested coping with the famine in Zimbabwe through intrusive measures. It would be helpful if the Minister explained what the US might have in mind, and what our Government believe is appropriate. During operation Lifeline Sudan, air drops were used to deliver aid to key parts of the country that could not be reached by other means. Are the Government now considering that type of measure for the current crisis in Zimbabwe?
The international community in its various guises has a major responsibility to focus on Zimbabwe. Perhaps the most important focus should come from southern African countries. In the past year, we have seen the New Partnership for Africa's Development brought forward, and hailed as a great step change in the way that Africa looks after its economic development and its political governance. Africa has given itself the tools that it needs to tackle many of its problems. Although that has been hailed as a qualitative change, the most recent meeting between the Southern African Development Community and the European Union failed to agree on the procedures that NEPAD should follow.
South Africa, the key player in the region, has continued to support Zimbabwe to an extent that is hard for those us of outside the region to understand. Without its help, Zimbabwe would be in a truly awful state—even worse than at present. South Africa, along with Nigeria and Australia, was the key to the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth earlier this year. At the time, the Canadian high commissioner hailed that as NEPAD passing its first test. It would appear that it is in danger of flunking the
182WH
second. After the most recent meeting of southern African and Zimbabwean foreign Ministers, the South African Minister said:
"Even if Zimbabwe has made a mistake, the point is that we need to move to the future".
African media comment was rightly harsh, criticising that Minister for ignoring the ugliness of what has happened in Zimbabwe.
The country cannot shake off its responsibilities. It has to lift its own veil; other countries in the region will then perhaps play their part. It is argued that there is an honourable tradition that countries in Africa do not meddle in each other's affairs. That might be realpolitik if the problem existed only within Zimbabwean borders, but the contagion is spreading economically and politically. Not only are the southern African countries suffering from the withdrawal of current investment and further concerns about future investment, but they seem to have no prospect of being accepted for additional positive treatment from the international community in the years ahead unless they tackle the problem.
African media comment on the current state of NEPAD has been just as harsh as its observations on the activities of South Africa concerning Zimbabwe. One commentator stated that the NEPAD project
"is doomed to fail because it is nothing more than wishful thinking".
That would be a disaster for southern Africa, and specifically for Zimbabwe. The United Kingdom has long links with Zimbabwe and the region as a whole, and we are rightly concerned about what goes on in that great country. The despot who is in charge of it and is determined to ruin his country should be under no illusions about what the international community regards as right and proper. We have slightly lost pace during the past few months. I hope that the Government will show us that that pace is about to pick up again.
10.24 am
Mr. Michael Ancram: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on securing the debate and on introducing it in such a measured yet forceful manner.
The debate addresses some of the most vicious violations of human and civil rights in the world today. I join my right hon. Friend in regretting that the debate is not taking place in Government time on the Floor of the House of Commons. Once again, an Opposition Member has had to raise the topic. My right hon. Friend said that he chided the Government gently. If I may, I shall be a little more blunt. For months, we have had nothing but silence and inaction from the Government. I say that in a spirit not of anger but of frustration. For months, I have pressed the Government not only to say more but to do more. There was silence at the G8 in June and at the Earth summit in August. When pressed to raise the subject at the Earth summit, the Prime Minister said that he did not wish it to be hijacked by Zimbabwe, but it was hijacked by Zimbabwe—by President Mugabe—and by the President of Namibia. There was silence in November when the EU Southern African Development Community conference was moved from Copenhagen to Maputo to allow banned Zimbabweans to attend. There has been inaction in the face of ethnic

183WH
cleansing and politically manipulated starvation, and inaction as people are forcibly and illegally dispossessed and politically destroyed.
It is no wonder that the people of Zimbabwe feel abandoned by the British Government. I was there in July, and they told me so. They do not understand the reason for that. They know that they are not inhabitants of some distant country of which we know little. We know a lot about Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe knows a lot about us. We can have debates like this at a distance, but when one is in Zimbabwe—as I was for a short period in July—and sees the situation on the ground, it is difficult not to become frustrated. I saw the displaced black farm workers in the woods outside Harare. They were starving, they had been thrown out of their homes without any possessions or any hope of future employment, and they were being harassed by the authorities. I saw the food queues in Harare, alongside the fields outside Harare that were unplanted and unsown, with the rotting vegetation from last year's harvest still there. I met the brave young civil rights lawyers who are, at great risk to themselves, collecting evidence on human rights abuses—rape camps, murders and tortures. I met Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition—a very brave man facing a charge of treason.
Tony Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I will give way. If I sound a little emotional, it is because I sometimes feel that we do not understand with sufficient emotion what is happening in Zimbabwe.
Tony Cunningham: I want to reinforce the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. In some sections of the media, the situation is seen as an attack by a black African Government on white farmers, but the people who are suffering most are not white farmers but tens of thousands of black people who have also been forced from their homes and workplaces.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am glad that he reinforces my point.
I sometimes wonder whether the reason for the Government's inactivity is, as the Foreign Secretary suggested in his recent article in the New Statesman, that they are ashamed of our history and fearful of being accused of being neo-colonialist. I have talked to black people in Zimbabwe and they do not see it in that way at all. They see us as having a responsibility that they are waiting for us to fulfil. Rightly, the Government never hesitated to protect the oppressed people of Kosovo from violation and destruction, but they appear to standing passively by as even worse things happen in Zimbabwe. We must never let a situation arise whereby the millions of Zimbabweans who look to us for help appear less important than the peoples of the Balkans and of Afghanistan.
Zimbabwe is facing catastrophe. Hon. Members have outlined many of the ways in which that is happening. Of the 15.5 million people facing starvation in southern Africa, 6.5 million are in Zimbabwe. One in three adults in Zimbabwe is HIV-positive. The hon. Member for
184WH
Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) rightly made a point about that. HIV and malnutrition are perfect partners. I learned when I visited Zimbabwe and South Africa that HIV combined with malnutrition provides the quickest way for HIV to turn into full-blown AIDS. In 2000, the average life expectancy in Zimbabwe was 60 years. In two years, it has fallen to 37 years.
As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) pointed out, inflation is running at more than 100 per cent. It was 144 per cent. at the latest count, and the International Monetary Fund predicts that it will soon be more than 500 per cent. The economy is expected to shrink by more than 10 per cent. this year. The economy of Zimbabwe is in meltdown, yet we are told that the targeted sanctions—isolating Mugabe and his thugs from the international community—are effective. However, my constituents and I see Mugabe and his lieutenants waltzing around Europe unimpeded. His police chief has twice gone to France on Interpol business. People do not understand how that can happen if we are serious about sanctions that ban travel.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell raised a particular case, which I wish also to discuss. What is the truth about the vice-chairman of the ZANU-PF Harare executive, Chris Pasipamire? He is a well-known, brutal activist in farm evictions in Zimbabwe. Is it true that he has been granted a visa to come to this country to study—ironically—land reform? If so, I can say only that that is outrageous. Baroness Amos in the other place last week was unclear about that. I hope that we can get the full facts today, because they are owed to us.
Whatever else, the sanctions are not working, but what is working is the use of starvation as a political weapon. ZANU-PF's organising secretary, Didymus Mutasa, said in August:
"We would be better off with only six million people, with our own people who support the liberation struggle. We don't want all these extra people."
The extra people happen to be the 7 million other Zimbabweans who are now being starved, harried and ethnically cleansed, not least the 5 million proud Matabele. According to the United Nations World Food Programme, 6.7 million Zimbabweans need food aid. Increasingly, they can get it only from Mugabe in return for votes.
Food is a valuable political weapon for Mugabe. In Chimanimani, illiterate and hungry voters were rewarded with maize once they had been assisted to vote for ZAN U-PF in the September rural district council elections. The World Food Programme had to suspend food aid distribution in Insiza in October, following the seizure of food by ruling ZANU-PF activists. In that part of the country, which very much supports the Movement for Democratic Change, Mugabe used food for political blackmail. That safe MDC seat was won by ZANU-PF in a recent by-election in return for food.
The control of food in Mugabe's hands is, in a sense, a weapon of mass destruction. He has created the shortages. His illegal farm seizure policy has destroyed Zimbabwe's self-sufficiency. The national cereal deficit is a staggering 1.5 million tonnes. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned a drought. I saw no drought when I was in Zimbabwe in July—the

185WH
reservoirs were brimming. Water is not the problem; the problem is that because nothing has been planted there is nothing to harvest. That is Mugabe's legacy. A country that used to feed its neighbours has now become the beggar of Africa.
Mugabe still has in his sights constitutional gerrymandering to preserve his dictatorship. He needs a two-thirds majority in Parliament for a change. In November, he was six MPs short of that. After the Insiza by-election, he was five short and, after the suspicious death of MDC MP Learnmore Jongwe, he is down to four. To put it simply, he is terrorising and bribing, if not murdering, his way to the destruction of democracy.
Then there are the attacks on justice and press freedom. There is now no justice to speak of and no protection to which people can turn. The Insiza by-election showed that graphically. An MDC official was shot in a police station in front of police by the ZANU-PF candidate, Andrew Langa. The victim and 11 MDC associates were subsequently charged with inciting violence against themselves, and the aggressor walked free. On 29 August, one of the two independent radio stations in Zimbabwe, the Voice of the People, was destroyed in a midnight bomb explosion. Since July, a total of 18 journalists have been arrested and charged under Mugabe's Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. ZANU-PF supporters and war veterans continue to attack vendors selling copies of the fiercely independent Daily News.
Yet, astonishingly, in the face of all that, the International Cricket Council still looks likely to hold part of the coming world cup in Zimbabwe. Inevitably, the patron of the Zimbabwe Cricket Union, Robert Mugabe, will be there and will parade himself as a great leader on an international stage. I found an extraordinary quotation from Robert Mugabe that dates back to 1984. He said:
"Cricket civilises people and creates good gentlemen. I want everyone to play cricket in Zimbabwe; I want ours to be a nation of gentlemen."
How hollow that must ring in today's Zimbabwe. To use a cricketing analogy: if Mugabe is really keen on cricket, he should learn that when one is given out one does not glue the bails to the stumps and say, "I have not been given out," as he did in the election earlier this year.
To give Mugabe a stage is to ignore his fascist brutality, to turn a blind eye to his genocidal behaviour and to spit in the faces of the millions of Zimbabweans who are enduring poverty, oppression and death at the hands of this vile dictator. The people of Zimbabwe love cricket, but not at the cost of buttressing Mugabe and his henchmen. I call again for the ICC to relocate the Zimbabwean part of the world cup. This is not about sport, it is about a murderous dictatorship. No one can deal with Mugabe and not be soiled by it.
How much of the estimated $10 million revenues accrued from media coverage and match sponsorship will end up in the coffers of Mugabe and his cronies? The Government have been strangely silent on the matter.
Mr. Swire: Will my right hon. Friend join me in regretting the Government's seeming lack of determination to pursue the millions that Mugabe and his henchmen have sequestered around the world?
Mr. Ancram: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I will come to his point in a moment.
I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to join me and others in urging the ICC to move the world cup from Zimbabwe. None of us can stand aside from what is happening. We cannot do nothing and hope that death, destruction and implosion will bring their own answer. The human cost is too horrific to contemplate. Last week, to my surprise, the Secretary of State for International Development said:
"I really fear that there will be a disaster such as we have never seen in our lifetime, with the lack of food, the political situation and HIV all playing into each other. I expect that that will bring an end to that awful regime."—[Official Report, 11 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 243.]
It must not be the Government's policy simply to let famine, genocide and corruption decide the future of Zimbabwe's people.
Of course, as the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) said, there is no easy solution. There are a number of steps that must urgently be taken. In many cases, the previous measures that we called for—travel bans, the freezing of assets, suspension from the Commonwealth—came too late. Sanctions must be tightened and made to bite. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell rightly suggested, the travel ban and the assets freeze must be extended to cover families, including children, of members of the regime and also those international business men who bankroll the regime. He mentioned Mr. van Hoogstraten. I mention Mr. John Bredenkamp. I hope that the Government will investigate carefully what his involvement in Zimbabwe has been.
The Government must work with the United States of America to monitor food distribution on the ground in order to destroy Mugabe's ability to use food as an instrument of oppression. They should persuade the United Nations Security Council immediately to place UN personnel on the ground in Zimbabwe in order to monitor not just food distribution but human rights abuses. We have to work with the United States State Department to bring new pressures to bear on South Africa to get Mugabe to hold fresh elections. There is a genuine and growing concern about the potentially devastating economic impact of the situation in Zimbabwe on the South African economy.
I have always welcomed NEPAD and think that it is a worthwhile initiative, not least because of the quasi-contractual nature of the plan: financial investment is offered in return for good governance. The agreement was that good governance is for African Governments to assess at peer-group level. A test of that assessment must be whether those African Governments condemn the clear misgovernance of Zimbabwe. If they do not, they should not receive the NEPAD money. In arguing for that legitimate leverage, I have frequently been accused of seeking to damage black African interests beyond Zimbabwe. Of course it would cause wider pain, but nothing like the pain being experienced by the people of Zimbabwe today. There is no painless

187WH
solution, but a solution must be found. South Africa must be persuaded that it is in its best interests to bring this disaster to a swift close. South Africa holds the key. It has the power and the means to do that, and it will suffer immense damage if it does not.
Why are the British Government so shy of bringing friendly pressure to bear on South Africa? Why is the Prime Minister so loth to ensure that NEPAD works as it was designed to work—genuinely to promote good governance for all of Africa? Why are the Government so resolute in the face of human rights abuses elsewhere, yet so silent in the face of Mugabe?
I hope that the Minister will be brave. He should stop being frightened of his post-colonial shadow, restore this country's credibility and fulfil the promise that his Prime Minister made at the conference a year and a half ago that the Government had a moral duty to act. The Minister must tell us today what the Government will do to end this nightmare. History will not easily forgive the Government who walked by on the other side, and nor will the people of Zimbabwe.
10.40 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on securing the debate. I welcome this opportunity to consider the critical situation in Zimbabwe. It is tragic that half the population of that country, which was once referred to as the bread basket of Africa, now depends on food aid. The tragedy is all the greater because, although southern Africa is affected by drought, the policies of ZANU-PF have turned a situation that could have been managed into a humanitarian crisis.
Evidence of ZANU-PF's mismanagement can be found everywhere: inflation at 140 per cent., unemployment at more than 60 per cent. and a currency trading at more than 20 times its official rate. Zimbabwe's economy will shrink by about 12 per cent. this year, at a time when most of Africa is seeing growth, and it has already shrunk by 23 per cent. in the last two years. It is the fastest imploding economy in the world.
That incompetent economic performance is coupled with a collapse in the rule of law and high levels of political violence. More than 140 people have been killed since 2000, the great majority of them opposition supporters. The majority of the victims are black, as are the many thousands of former farm workers who are now homeless—displaced in their own country in the name of the fast-track land resettlement policy.
Zimbabwe's problems are the result not of a black versus white conflict or a conflict between Zimbabwe and Britain, but of poor Government policies. The main victims of the regime's policies are the poor black people of Zimbabwe. For that reason, we continue to help Zimbabwe with humanitarian assistance. Since September 2001, we have contributed £43 million—taxpayers' money—and we will continue to do so. That money is disbursed through the World Food Programme and non-governmental organisations, not the Zimbabwean Government.
188WH
The right hon. Member for Bracknell asked why we could not do more. Well, Britain has done a lot. Indeed, we invested substantial resources under a Conservative Government in helping to bring Zimbabwe to independence. Those resources were extended after independence in the form of £500 million in bilateral assistance. However, independence means just that. Zimbabwe's regime is responsible for its actions; it cannot pass the buck to others, whether in Britain, Europe or anywhere else. Zimbabwe's regime needs to accept responsibility for its actions, which are damaging the Zimbabwean people.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) gave what he described as an emotional speech. He referred to the UK Government standing passively by and urged us to respond as we did in Kosovo. I suspect that there is a loss of perspective here. It almost seems as if he thinks some form of gunboat diplomacy is the way forward. It is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and the right hon. Member for Bracknell were right to say that some form of military intervention was a bad idea. It would carry huge political costs and is practically impossible. Zimbabwe needs peace, not more conflict. The MDC does not want it. In any case, the region would not cooperate. The UN Security Council's role is international peace and security. The region would need to support any action. That is not the way forward.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes that we need to put more pressure on the Zimbabwean Government. We have had co-operation from both the European Union and the Commonwealth. Zimbabwe was suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth in March. The Commonwealth troika remains engaged. Australian Prime Minister Howard, South African President Mbeki and Nigerian President Obasanjo met in Abuja on 23 September. Mugabe was invited, but did not attend. The troika will review the situation in March, at which point it has said that stronger measures might need to be considered. We welcome that clear signal of a continuing Commonwealth engagement and regret that Zimbabwe has not responded.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell asked why the Prime Minister did not mention Zimbabwe in the Copenhagen statement yesterday. Zimbabwe was not on the agenda at Copenhagen, but was discussed at the previous week's EU General Affairs Council. It will be raised again in January. Zimbabwe is raised regularly by the United Kingdom in EU forums and will continue to be raised regularly. I accept that it is an enormously important issue. The Government intend to ensure that it remains high on the EU's agenda.
EU sanctions were introduced in February 2002. We will work to ensure their rollover or extension next year. Some 79 people are now on the banned list; 28 accounts in the United Kingdom containing funds totalling over £500,000 have been frozen. We expect more to follow. That is the sort of well targeted pressure that hits the individuals responsible for Zimbabwe's situation.
Mr. Mackay: Will the Minister confirm that we plan to extend and deepen the sanctions to include financial backers, middle-rank officials and/or Members of Parliament, as I suggested in my speech?
Mr. O'Brien: I shall come to that. We ought to consider the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. I will certainly look at an extension and see whether there are ways in which we can tighten the grip and pressure on Zimbabwe. We would obviously need to talk to our European partners and the United States. They have a longer list of banned people, but they are not applying the freezing of assets as we would prefer. We need to increase the pressure on Zimbabwe by working with both our European partners and the United States.
Mr. Swire: The Opposition have asked repeatedly about the freezing of assets of all those involved with Mugabe and his regime, particularly those assets that are held overseas. Can the Minister tell us what action has been taken by the Government since we started asking those questions?
Mr. O'Brien: As I have just said, we have frozen 28 accounts in the UK. Obviously, it is for other countries to freeze accounts in their territories. We want to see the freezing of accounts and the extension of pressures, restrictions and bans on individuals who are responsible for Zimbabwe's condition.
Since April, people on the banned list have been denied access to the European Union on six occasions. As recently as November, others have been obliged to cancel their plans to travel in the EU. That shows that EU sanctions are having an effect. Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, New Zealand and Australia have also imposed targeted sanctions, and the International Monetary Fund adopted a declaration of non-co-operation with Zimbabwe because of its refusal to co-operate with it on policy, and its arrears. On 11 September, the board began procedures to suspend Zimbabwe's voting rights, which in effect expelled Zimbabwe. It is clear that Mugabe is imposing his own economic sanctions on Zimbabwe.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell made a point about the visa for Chris Pasipamire. All visa applications are carefully assessed in accordance with immigration rules. I understand that the gentleman in question has a visit visa, not a student visa, so he cannot study in the United Kingdom at this point. He is not on the EU banned list, and I understand that he has told a newspaper and others that he wants to look for a course. However, if he does so and finds one, he cannot go on it. If he wants a student visa, he will have to reapply. I will ensure that Home Office Ministers are aware of the concern expressed in the debate about his case.
Mr. Ancram: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I said that I would not give way again, but I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman is very brief. Before he intervenes, however, I must tell him and other hon. Members that I cannot prejudge the view of a Home Office Minister and officials about a particular visa case. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that, given his experience in government.
Mr. Ancram: Why was Chris Pasipamire allowed to come here, given that we have a ban against people who are active in the regime in Zimbabwe? Why is he not on the banned list?
Mr. O'Brien: He is not on the banned list. [HON. MEMBERS: "He should be."] Several hon. Members are now saying from a sedentary position that he should be. However, he was not on that list when he applied for his visa, so he was granted a visa. He will have to apply again if he finds a course and wants to go on it. I will ensure that the concerns expressed in this House are brought to the attention of Home Office Ministers, who will be able to do what is appropriate in the circumstances and within the law.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell expressed concern about extending the various bans. I will consider that, and will write to him on that point. He also said that we should consider the possibility of extending the bans to civil servants and some of their families, as well as to bankers. That is a useful point, and I will consider the feasibility of doing that and how it would work. Again, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted to see arrests. Again, if it is possible to do so—if people are in this country and there is evidence of offences—I am sure that the police will respond appropriately. He rightly said that there was a lack of response from some parts of Africa to the situation in Zimbabwe, and that countries next to Zimbabwe needed to respond much more firmly to ensure that the reputation of Africa, which in many ways is at stake, was not damaged by the likes of President Mugabe. The British Government are talking to other African countries, and President Mbeki, the president of southern Africa's most major country—South Africa—will visit the UK at the start of next year. The Prime Minister will raise those issues with the president, who is engaged in trying to move them forward.
The EU-Africa summit in Lisbon on 3 and 4 April was mentioned. The EU troika will discuss it at the meeting in January; our view is that the visa ban on ZANU-PF elite should not be waived for that event.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell was concerned about the continuing violence against MDC media and trade unions. We condemn that violence and ZANU-PF's continued use of intimidation, especially against the MDC. It was clearly seen at the by-election in Insiza district on 26 and 27 October, as was ZANU-PF's blatant manipulation of food aid. The World Food Programme was forced to suspend distribution in Insiza during that period.
We strongly condemn the disgraceful and groundless arrest of Wellington Chibebe of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, and of eight other trade union leaders, The right hon. Gentleman said that people were threatened that if they did not vote ZANU-PF they would not get food, but the situation is worse than that. In some instances, people who do not carry a ZANU-PF membership card do not get Government food. Donor food is dealt with in a different way, but it shows the extent of the regime. A leading ZANU-PF MP, Didymus Mutasa, was reported as saying that he did not mind if 6 million Zimbabweans died as long as the remaining 6 million were loyal to ZANU-PF. When one is dealing with someone with that turn of mind, what can one say to convince them that they have to behave in a different way?

191WH
We are doing all that we can, putting in substantial resources to help the victims of Zimbabwe's humanitarian crisis, the scale of which is great. DF1D has committed £43 million of UK taxpayers' money since September 2001; British aid is distributed by the UN World Food Programme and internationally respected NGOs on the basis of need alone. Some of that support will also go towards agricultural inputs for planting next season. We are worried that next year might be worse than this year, but there is nothing that we can do about the food that the regime has bought, which is being distributed based on people's membership of, or loyalty to, ZANU-PF. We strongly condemn that. The United Kingdom has committed £56 million in response to the latest humanitarian appeal for Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland.
The right hon. Members for Bracknell and for Devizes raised the issue of sport. Like the right hon. Member for Bracknell, I think that we should be cautious about importing politics into sport. However, we should recognise that there are exceptions. The right hon. Gentleman said that the world cup should not go to Zimbabwe. The Government's position is that the decision whether to play the six world cup matches in Zimbabwe can be taken only by the International Cricket Council, of which the England and Wales Cricket Board is part.
Mr. Swire: That is obvious.
Mr. O'Brien: I will come to that in a minute. The decision should be taken in the light of what is happening in Zimbabwe and in recognition of the fact that the political, economic and humanitarian situation could deteriorate in the next few months. We briefed the England and Wales Cricket Board with our travel advice, as we would other British organisations and individuals considering travelling to Zimbabwe, and we have agreed to keep in touch. Decisions whether to travel to Zimbabwe have to be taken by the individuals or organisations themselves, based on all the information available to them. The Government's position is to ask the ICC and the ECB to look at the matter. We will not issue orders to them; however, speaking personally, I hope that they will listen to the strong views expressed in the debate. My view is that it would be better if the team did not go.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) raised the issue of the arms embargo. As the time available is short, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
Our objectives for Zimbabwe are clear. We want a prosperous, stable and democratic Zimbabwe. The ruler of Zimbabwe is preventing the country's people from having such a future. We condemn the way in which he is running the country, we are determined to take action to deal with him, and we will work through international institutions to achieve that. With the help of the Zimbabwean people and the international community, we will ensure that we create a Zimbabwe in the long term that works in the interests of all the people of Zimbabwe and is prepared to deal with all the critical issues facing the country.

Urban Deprivation
11 am
Ms Karen Buck: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to introduce today's debate. When the angels ask me to recall the thrill of my parliamentary contributions, I will have to reveal that they have focused disproportionately on such issues as tax credits, housing benefit, the implementation of the social fund and local government finance. I suspect that even St. Peter would be stunned into torpor to listen to them, but, at the risk of sounding pompous, I should say that such issues are the meat and drink of people's experience of government, particularly the experience of the poor.
My comments today will touch on important aspects of the quality of services that people receive from central Government through local agencies. I have three main points. First, I shall discuss the distribution of local authority grants in the light of the recent grant review and settlement. Secondly, I shall focus on the index of multiple deprivation—the means by which the Government distribute resources for special projects aimed at deprived areas. Thirdly, I shall talk about the census and what it can tell us about the measurement of people's needs in urban communities.
The vast majority of resources distributed to areas of deprivation are mainstreamed through the resources made available to local government, health authorities, regional development agencies and so forth. The mainstreaming grants are the most important.
Last week saw the results of the review of local government finance and the distribution of grants to local authorities across England. The review process was controversial because it went back to basics in examining the measurements of need and the allocation of resources. Much disquiet was caused, especially in London and in urban authorities in other parts of the country, about how the indicators were determined and the different weightings across the country. The review was, rightly, seen as influencing the amount of resources available to local government for social services, education and other vital services.
London local authorities across the board did better than had been feared. Some—Brent, Tower Hamlets and Newham, which have high levels of deprivation—did well, and I am delighted that they received a generous settlement. Nevertheless, it is clear—analysis continues in town halls throughout the country—that next year some local authorities, particularly those on the floor, will face a tough year as a result of their budget settlements. Welcome though the floor is, and however much better it might be than what was expected earlier in the year, I fear that exceptional costs and needs pressures in London and other urban authorities have not been fully recognised. The debate will continue—the recent review has not fully settled the issue.
Population mobility and turnover are a concern for urban authorities throughout the United Kingdom, particularly those in London. High population turnover in the cities places particular pressure on schools, social services and environmental services, but the Government have not yet recognised the extent of that pressure. I had hoped that this year the Government would decide in favour of a special grant to help

193WH
authorities with high population turnover, especially of pupils in schools, but they have given no indication that they will and no such decision emerged from the recent settlement. Will the Minister tell us today, or at a later stage, whether the debate on meeting the needs of communities with high population turnover is continuing? That population trend appears to be accelerating in urban communities, and it will need further discussion.
The main issue that I will address this morning is the index of multiple deprivation. Many London local authorities are ranked lower in the 2000 index of multiple deprivation than in its 1998 predecessor. Of the seven authorities nationally that dropped out of the 50 most deprived across all the domains, four were London authorities. Most large metropolitan authorities are ranked as less deprived in the 2000 index and, in general, non-urban shire authorities are ranked as more deprived compared with 1998.
Those changes in ranking affected the funding allocated to London boroughs. A rough estimate shows that if the previous index had been in force, London would have benefited from £125 million more in neighbourhood renewal funding and £125 million of housing funding through the general housing needs index. The Minister will be aware that housing pressures are the single most acute issue facing central London and probably London as a whole.
The current review should be taken as an opportunity to ensure that the resources intended to tackle deprivation are focused on areas where need is greatest and where investment will do the most good. There are three areas in which I hope that the Minister will be able to accept my representations and those of other Members of Parliament and organisations such as the Association of London Government and the Greater London Authority. I am sure that many of those organisations will make formal submissions to the review.
The first such area comprises crime, social order and the physical environment. It is essential that issues of crime and social order are included in any future index. The Association of London Government is confident that we now have the means to compare ward-based crime rates, taking account of population numbers and characteristics, and risk levels. There can be no question that the quality of life enjoyed by residents in a particular neighbourhood is closely related to their experience of crime and antisocial behaviour. I therefore urge the Government to use such an indicator in the review.
Similarly, perceptions of physical danger or squalor in a neighbourhood powerfully influence its desirability and, therefore, the potential for ensuring a healthy and viable social mix in that area in future. I urge the Government to incorporate indicators on road traffic accidents—which are, as we know, closely correlated with poverty—and levels of air pollution. Those indicators are easy to measure and would be recognised as meaningful.
The second issue—I know that other hon. Members want to address this in more detail, so I will skirt over it—is the measurement of access to services other than
194WH
in a strictly geographical way. In recent years, one of the IMD indicators that have caused most concern to representatives of urban authorities in the distribution of local government resources is the scarcity indicator. I grew up in a village, and the last bus home left town at 6.25 pm, so I am conscious of the fact that rural isolation can also be equated with poverty and deprivation. That issue needs to be tackled.
There are, however, perverse consequences of using scarcity indicators, which may count a long and sweeping driveway as a measure of deprivation. Families growing up in 18 and 20-storey tower blocks may be seen to be relatively less deprived as a consequence of the range in the scarcity and density indicator.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady makes a thoughtful speech about the indicators. One can have as many indicators as one wants, but at the end of the day, there must be the political will to make sure things actually happen. It seems to me that there is stagnation in London caused by the Mayor: he has produced a huge spatial plan, but it seems that very little has happened since. Would the hon. Lady care to comment on what has been positively done for her constituency, or for London as a whole, since the Mayor produced that plan?
Ms Buck: Thanks to the Mayor's commitment to increasing the provision of affordable housing in private sector housing developments, my constituents and those in the borough of Westminster have benefited considerably compared with the previous efforts of the council in securing affordable housing units or putting additional investment into the affordable housing fund. In that way alone the work that the Mayor has done has been of considerable value on a measure that is dearer to the hearts of my constituents than almost any other.
The London plan is the most ambitious and comprehensive review of the needs of London for generations. Of course, the consultation is taking time—many people have an opinion about it, and I am not going to sign up to every dot and comma. It covers such a wide range of issues that a debate is right and proper, but at least we have a sweeping and panoramic vision of how we want the future of London to develop. It would be most unwise of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to dismiss it.
Mr. Mark Field: Addressing that point, I agree that there is great vision in the London plan. It has to be said, however, that Mr. Livingstone is not a man with the capacity to deliver on that vision. We all know that, as does anyone sensible in politics.
The main problem with the suggestion about affordable housing is that private developers will be dissuaded from carrying out any development at all. That is one our concerns. We all want to see more key workers housed in central London, which is a policy of the two Conservative authorities based in the hon. Lady's constituency. There is no question about that, but the real concern is that developers would be

195WH
dissuaded by such a hard and fast set rule. At the end of the day, the most vulnerable in society would lose out if such policies were put in place without flexibility.
Ms Buck: The most vulnerable people in society have lost out by the thousand on housing opportunities as a consequence of the planning and housing policies adopted by Westminster city council over the years. One only has to look at the borough represented most ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) to know what a local authority can do when it negotiates hard with developers.
Hammersmith and Fulham council has an excellent record of achieving affordable housing in its development and we have had no indication that private sector developers are refusing to enter into any form of negotiation with that council. Westminster council in particular has failed to make use of its opportunities over the years: it is sitting on some of the highest value land in Britain, and people in housing need have been the losers. I am sympathetic with much of what the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) says—I know that he is concerned for his constituents—but I am afraid that that is absolute nonsense.
On measurement of access to services, I ask the Minister to review again the issue of scarcity versus density, and to accept the fact that road distance is of very limited value as a deprivation measure. We need to incorporate other barriers to access to services, of which the use of minority languages would be a very good measure. Where 170 different languages are spoken—as in London—and there is little recognition of the additional cost pressures that that places on services outside education, it is essential that we take such indicators into consideration.
The third issue is housing costs and affordability. That affects the index of multiple deprivation and the allocation of Government resources to local authorities. I am concerned about the possibility that the new index will use working families tax credit as an indicator of urban poverty. That measure discriminates against London, and its use may already have cost us between £15 million and £18 million in grant allocation. London as a region has a relatively low take-up of working families tax credit, due largely to the high cost barriers to entering work—child care and housing costs—and a skills mismatch.
Housing costs have a massive impact on disposable income. Any measures that exclude property issues will fail to reflect poverty levels. One option in the review is to use households that claim working families tax credit and that have incomes below 60 per cent. of the median before housing costs, but that will seriously distort comparisons between regions. In many cases, households in London appear above the median solely because of differences in housing benefit, yet that tells us nothing at all about their disposable income or quality of life.
I also ask the Minister to reject proposals to exclude lone parents from the employment domain. New research from the Greater London Authority shows that 90 per cent. of lone parents interviewed expressed a desire to work, with more than half citing lack of affordable or suitable child care as the barrier. There is
196WH
no case for excluding such lone parents on the grounds that they may not wish to be available for work. London has the highest percentage in England of children living in households that are dependent on income support, and what that means must be properly recognised.
I ask the Minister to take time to study the recent report "London Divided". It shows that despite the progress that has been made and the excellent and innovative schemes that are in place to reduce poverty—from sure start to the children's fund, from the new deal to youth inclusion programmes—poverty in inner London remains staggeringly high. One quarter of London children are held to be living in poverty before housing costs are taken into account, rising to 41 per cent. if such costs are taken into account. Thank God for the working families tax credit. It is an important and valuable tool, but to use it as an indicator of poverty would be to do an injustice to urban authorities and to London in particular.
Finally, let me mention the census. On the back of last year's census, and more generally, concern is increasing about the accuracy of data sources relating to numbers and needs in an increasingly mobile, multi-ethnic population. At the risk of being accused of special pleading, I must say that I am completely confident that the census has not given us a complete picture of the population in central London, whether its final figures show a plus or a minus compared with previous estimates. The same is likely to be true of several other urban areas. Inner-city populations are becoming harder to track and count, and that has massive implications, not only for head counts and capitation-based allocations, but for the measurement of deprivation. The Office for National Statistics may be doing a brilliant job in 96 per cent. of the country, but it would be unwise of anyone to be too confident about the accuracy of its figures on the inner city. The time is ripe for an overhaul of the processes by which we measure numbers and needs in an urban context. I ask the Minister to consider that point.
Sources of funding available to my constituency under the index of urban deprivation have been immensely valuable. We have benefited from the urban renewal fund, the neighbourhood nurseries initiative and neighbourhood warden schemes. Many projects have made a distinct contribution to improving the quality of life for my residents, but I am very concerned that, as a result of a combination of the census and possible changes to the indicators in the review, urban communities in Paddington and north Kensington, across London and in other urban authorities will not continue to benefit from such sources of funding. We must choose the right package of indicators to reflect most accurately the reality of urban poverty and urban deprivation.
As London's needs become more intensely concentrated, complex and turbulent, resources available through the index of multiple deprivation become more important than ever. I hope that the Government will listen to representations and address the concerns so that we can do still more to tackle the pressures that bear down on our cities, and on London in particular.
11.18 am
Mr. Mark Field: I congratulate the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing this important debate. As one or two colleagues may have gathered, notwithstanding the little spat we had a moment or two ago, we work well together—at least that is my side of the story—on several Westminster-related issues.
I believe that we are both glad to see that in the comprehensive performance assessments not only Westminster but also Kensington and Chelsea were rated excellent councils. A neighbouring borough, Hammersmith and Fulham, had an excellent rating as well. It says much for the dedication of councillors and many council officers and employees in central London that we are able to achieve such excellence, particularly in social services, which is always a most difficult side of things, in the difficult circumstances to which the hon. Lady alluded.
One of the first things that I did when I entered Parliament about 18 months ago was to visit the two local hospitals in my patch: Barts in the City of London and St. Mary's in Paddington. When I asked about the bed-blocking problems that I had heard of from so many other parliamentary colleagues, the hospital officials said that they did not have such problems. That is very much a tribute to the work that is done for the most vulnerable in our society.
My constituency, like the hon. Lady's, is diverse. If people walk through the leafy streets of St. John's Wood in her constituency, or through the more deprived parts of Bayswater and Pimlico, they would not necessarily assume that they were in, respectively, a constituency that was a relatively safe Labour seat, and one that was a relatively safe Conservative seat. That is true throughout London. The Minister represents Hornsey and Wood Green, which includes lush bits of Fortis Green and Muswell Hill that do not appear to be deprived but, around almost every corner, great problems exist. That applies to suburban areas as well to inner London.
I shall say a few words about the local government finance settlement, touch on the census, which was mentioned by the hon. Lady, and wind up with a few thoughts on deprivation.
There is no doubt that there is abject poverty in central London. Even in my constituency, more than 75 per cent. of housing is social housing in several wards. There are also the many problems that arise from having a large number of asylum seekers and other immigration issues. As the hon. Lady said, a factor that is taken far too little into account is mobility. The most recent figures for 2000 showed that turnover in Cities of London and Westminster was the largest single turnover in any seat—23 per cent. It is probably the same 23 per cent. who move year on year; the entire population does not change over a four-year period. None the less, that puts major pressures on schools, hospitals and social services.
It was therefore disappointing that, in the financial settlement, the social services of several inner London authorities saw a slash in finances that will have an impact if the 3.5 per cent. floor in increases are lifted next year, or at any point in the near future, without
198WH
considering financing. The settlement runs the risk of penalising excellent, well run councils, and I am not making a narrow party political point, because that is as true for Labour councils as for Conservative ones.
Ms Buck: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that perhaps the entire reason why Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster are at the floor—we have yet to complete analysis on that—is because of the problem with population measurement and the census, rather than with using indicators that have been chosen, as he implied, to penalise these authorities?
Mr. Field: That is fair. In a moment, I shall move on to the environmental, protective and cultural services HEPCSH basket because that has a strong impact, particularly in southern Westminster.
It would be wrong to defend the old standard spending assessment system; it was arcane to put it mildly. However, there is a worry that we are replacing it with another grant distribution system that is equally perverse and lacks transparency. Local government finance is not easy at the best of times so we need either a relatively clear process or a recognition that clarity will not be achieved. To call the new system transparent, when it has arcane rules, is not helpful.
On EPCS, strong arguments exist for treating several central London authorities as sui generis. The business rate for Westminster alone amounts to about £860 million annually, which goes into Government funds and from which Westminster is able to call on about £72.5 million. I appreciate that that may not be a fair comparison, but it suggests that Westminster should be treated differently.
On the cost of street cleansing, the most recent contract that has been signed for Westminster amounts to a 60 per cent. increase on the previous contract. The rate of inflation for cleansing contracts is clearly greater than the average rate of inflation. Westminster does a good job in that area—a number of colleagues say that when they walk across the road they feel that there is a greater risk of a Westminster city council cleansing van knocking them down than of cars or cyclists doing so. Westminster makes an important contribution to the UK as a whole. Central London is a showcase to overseas investors and visitors, and there are vast numbers of non-residents. We need to ensure that the quality of our streets is sufficiently high.
As has been mentioned, the performance of social services in central London is high. However, the budget is at risk, and I hope that central Government will think about ring-fencing it. Many people assume that the City of London, which is part of my constituency, must be a wealthy area because of the riverside developments of recent years and the Barbican, which was not a wealthy area when it was built. The Barbican originally contained much social housing, although the right to buy means that relatively little of it remains. In my patch, there is also Petticoat square and the Mansell street estate, which is more like Tower Hamlets than the City of London. It is important that we do not assume that relatively wealthy areas are taken care of, because the most vulnerable will fall through the hole if they are not catered for.
It has been estimated that 60,000 people were "lost" in the Westminster census. I moved into Westminster in April 2000, and on three occasions I tried to obtain a

199WH
census form, but I could not manage to do so. I have never completed a census form, and I know that many people who live near me in Belgravia have experienced the same difficulty. I reiterate the concern of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North that we need to give that matter some serious thought. That point applies not only to Westminster but to several other inner London boroughs, and at last week's Prime Minister's Question Time, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) also expressed similar concerns. I hope that the Government will examine the matter. If the census figures are not right an important knock-on effect, which will affect funding for the most vulnerable in the years ahead, will clearly come into play.
The Office for National Statistics seems to totter from one disaster to another. It overvalued pension funds in February, double-counted contributions in October, and now faces concerns about the census. It is high time that it was subject to an independent investigation, and I hope that the Minister can provide some pointers to such an investigation when she replies.
I shall say a few words about asylum seekers in central London. I do so with a slightly heavy heart because, like the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I have foreign blood in my veins. My mother had sought asylum twice by the age of 15. She was born in a part of Germany that is now in Poland, and fled with her family in the immediate aftermath of the second world war and then again in 1954. I do not therefore have a hard-and-fast view on asylum seekers, although I personally believe that we should encourage more economic migrants into this country.
We should welcome people who want to abide by our laws and make a contribution to our society by integrating with it and assimilating into it. On the issue of assimilation and the indigenous population, the population is not static and the common norms of today will be different from those that will exist in 20 or 30 years' time, and there is no doubt that waves of immigrants will play a part in that. Members who represent central London constituencies are weighed down by the amount of work that we have to do on behalf of asylum seekers or people requiring immigration advice. Many of them are not constituents in the sense that they do not count towards the, say, 73,000 people on our electoral rolls, but none the less they require significant assistance.
I have been concerned by events in Sangatte. In essence, the French Government blackmailed us into allowing the Sangatte refugees to come in. Although many of them have work permits, there is a fear that they have been dumped in central London. Three of four tranches of them have come into my constituency in the past 10 days. The matter, which has not been well thought through, is a further hammer blow to central London after the local government financial settlement, and I hope that the Minister will assure us—I appreciate that the asylum issue is not entirely in her hands—that the costs will be fully underwritten. In so far as central London authorities have to pay the bill for arrivals from Sangatte, who are going to play a part in our society and be living in hostels for the homeless or bed and
200WH
breakfasts for a time, the costs should be properly underwritten and taken into account in the consideration of future financial settlements.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The issue of immigrants, asylum seekers and those who are justified in coming here on work permits, visas and so forth is a difficult one that we do not discuss enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation, there should be a proper system of measuring what is going on so that resources can be allocated properly to deal with the problem?
Mr. Field: That is the nub of my point. My personal view—not my party's—is that we should pull out of most of the conventions of which we are members and look to take more economic refugees or migrants. Many of our so-called European partners have taken a parochial and nationalistic approach that has not assisted us in any way. My hon. Friend is right to say that proper measurement is required, not least because the most vulnerable among the indigenous population will suffer most if resources do not trickle down to those areas that have a disproportionate burden in dealing with asylum seekers.
Ms Buck: Although I am convinced that the census was inaccurate—the hon. Gentleman kindly told us that he did not complete his census form—we would be on dangerous ground if we equated that entirely with asylum seeking and migration, as he and others have attempted to do. When I raised the issue last year, my local authorities told me that there was a greater likelihood of non-participation in the census in the more prosperous multi-occupancy in the south of the borough than in the deprived and multi-ethnic north.
Mr. Field rose—
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. I deplore over-long interventions, but as it is the hon. Lady's debate I have showed discretion.
Mr. Field: Many of us deplore over-long speeches, Sir Nicholas.
I am sorry if I was in any way misconstrued. I was simply making a narrow point about deprivation in relation to the asylum issue, not trying to link it with the census. I suspect that there are not many asylum seekers in the vicinity of Belgravia who did not fill in their census forms for that reason.
11.32 am
Paul Flynn: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate, which is an extremely rare one on the subject of urban deprivation. If the title of the debate had been "Rural Deprivation", the Chamber would be full of Members making heart-rending cries about problems in rural areas—as they are of course entitled to do, as there are difficulties in those areas. Speaking, like many hon. Members, for a constituency that is partly rural and partly urban, I know about those difficulties.

201WH
Policies in the Welsh Assembly and in this Parliament have been hopelessly distorted by the vigorous hallelujah chorus of complaints from rural areas. That has resulted in policies that irrationally devote money to rural areas at the great expense of urban areas. I shall give a simple example. My constituency has three of the most deprived wards in the top 50 in Wales. Although we are in that position, we do not get a single penny of objective 1 money, whereas two areas, Ceredigion and Conwy, which do not have a single ward in the top 100 most deprived wards in Wales, get full objective 1 funding. The reason for that is rurality and the exaggerated picture that has been presented by the campaign led partly by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who is not known as an advocate for exposing urban deprivation.
I speak with a little more force today, having yesterday evening run the gauntlet of a blocked Westminster bridge between the serried ranks of police vehicles and mounted police and the lines of rural rabble who were threatening, violent and abusive. They were, I understand, organised by the Countryside Alliance. It is a great tribute to the police in London that, after I quoted
Sessional Orders to them, they got me through the lines of protestors who were, I understand, trying to persuade me and others to vote their way at the end of the debate. Nothing could be more counterproductive.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian, but his comments are not relevant to the debate. I should be obliged if he would direct his comments to urban deprivation.
Paul Flynn: Indeed I will, Sir Nicholas. The reason for the lack of cash going to urban areas is the excessive amounts that are being given to rural areas. I shall give an example from my constituency, which has suffered very badly from job losses during the past 12 months. For the first time since 1789, no iron will be manufactured in Gwent. An area of urban life has gone; it is dead and finished for ever. It is not only the jobs that have gone, but the skills that have existed there for more than two centuries. There was no letter from Mr. Angry of Highgrove to the Prime Minister complaining that a precious, unique way of life has died. The businesses that have been affected by the loss of steel jobs receive no compensation and some small businesses have gone to the wall. Extraordinarily, businesses that were affected by the foot and mouth outbreak—there are a number in my constituency because they do business in rural areas although they are located in an urban area—-received generous compensation amounting sometimes to tens of thousands of pounds, because they made a loss.
Urban areas have been deprived and discriminated against, but all the arguments, including the one advanced last week by the Countryside Agency—there is no urban agency—tell us that one in five country dwellers lives below the poverty line. That is regrettable, but one in four urban dwellers lives below the poverty line. The Government have just announced a policy for spending more than £500 million to keep rural post offices open and more than £100 million to close down
202WH
urban post offices. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North mentioned a deprived person living in a remote area down a drive a mile long. I agree with her entirely that there is urban isolation for people who live at the top of multi-storey blocks of flats. There is deprivation of community if the local post office on a council estate closes down and people do not see or have contact with their neighbours. Those losses are at least as damaging as those suffered in rural areas.
I have a list of statistics with which I shall not burden the Chamber, but in every example between urban and rural areas the priorities are wrong. The most deprived areas and those with the highest crime rate and the poorest schools, in which life expectation and every other factor that can be applied is poorest, are in urban areas. Yet for the past 50 years Governments have shelled out huge sums of money to compensate rural areas, and that money often comes at the expense of urban areas.
During a debate last week the Government announced an extra £500 million to implement the Currie report. It was not received with any enthusiasm by the Opposition, including the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who is speaking for the Opposition, and one hon. Member who complained about the lack of excitement and leadership. I would dearly like the Government to give £500 million to the steel, aluminium or other industries that have suffered grievously with resulting job losses. We put up with the fact that there was no excitement in the announcement or leadership, but that distortion in policies is continuing. That is partly due to the extraordinary propaganda exercise that is being mounted from Buckingham palace down to the various alliances and countryside agencies, many of which are funded by Government money. As a result of their constant, unrelenting complaints, our urban areas are being deprived, with obvious results for all to see.
Although almost unlimited sums have been given to urban areas for their problems, particularly during the past year, we must remember that every urban-dwelling family, often living in very poor conditions, is contributing £16 per week to one rural industry. There is a lack of funding in all urban areas, and poor priorities that are based not on reality but on the power of propaganda.
It is understandable that there is distortion in the reporting in the popular press: I do not know of any newspaper editor who does not live in a rural area, and I do not think that any would live in a deprived urban area.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. Is it in order for an hon. Member to impugn Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales in the way that the hon. Gentleman has done in a debate on urban deprivation? It seems to me that he is straying a long way from the subject.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I have listened with some concern to the remarks of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). I did not intervene, in the hope that he would not continue with such remarks.

203WH
I hope that he has heard the point of order that has been raised and understands my discomfort, in the Chair, at some of his remarks.
Paul Flynn: The people to whom I have referred are victims of their own environment, as rural billionaires, and I do not lay any criticism—
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman, because of his experience in the House and the respect that I have for him, not to continue with the remarks that he is making. As I have said, I think that the House could be placed in an awkward position.
Paul Flynn: I shall respect what you say, Sir Nicholas.
To reinforce my remarks, I point out that every calculation and every comparison between urban and rural areas shows rural areas to be better off. About 41 per cent. of rural households have two or more cars, compared with 26 per cent. in urban areas. Rural business growth is currently higher than urban business growth. The Government have allocated an additional £30 million to rural policing when, on every comparison of crime between urban and rural areas, it is urban areas that should have that extra policing. The standardised mortality ratio is 92.5 in rural areas and 99.7 in urban areas. About 45 per cent. of starting jobs gained under the new deal are in rural areas, compared with only 43 per cent. in urban areas. About 4 per cent. of households in rural areas have been burgled, compared with 10 per cent. in inner city areas. I believe that part of that distortion is evidenced in this House, where urban deprivation is not regarded as an issue of any importance, although it is a problem of gigantic proportions.
11.43 am
Mr. Iain Coleman: I shall be brief, because I am aware that other hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Sir Nicholas.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing today's important debate. I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the index of local deprivation, especially now that the contract to review the 2000 index of deprivation has been let by the neighbourhood renewal unit.
When the 2000 index of deprivation was published, it was seen that my local authority, the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, had fallen from being the 18th most deprived borough in the country to 68th in the list. That has had a very serious impact both on the amount of regeneration funds available to the borough and on mainstream funding in general, especially the amount of capital funding that the authority has been granted. Given that effect, the financial position of the council will be seriously affected by the outcome of the review and therefore that review is extremely important to my borough.
The allocation of the neighbourhood renewal funds transitional protection, which has been provided for the last three years to those localities that were in the top 50 in the 1998 index but dropped out, has also seriously affected my authority—although I am grateful for the transitional protection. Under the arrangement, the
204WH
seven boroughs that benefit from transitional protection, which include Hammersmith and Fulham, still qualify for neighbourhood renewal funding. However, that funding is calculated using a standard amount per head of population in those wards in the authority that are among the most deprived 10 per cent. of all wards nationally. In the 1998 index for local deprivation—I am talking about the previous arrangement—Hammersmith and Fulham had 13 wards in the poorest 10 per cent. nationally. By 2000, the number had fallen to two wards. The practical effect of that has been that the borough was allocated £2.3 million for next year, whereas if the previous index of local deprivation still applied, the council would have been allocated more than £13 million.
Hammersmith and Fulham has received £17 million less in housing capital, despite the transitional relief, as a result of the changes made to the index. In 2004, that transitional relief will end and the impact of ID 2000—the indices of deprivation published in 2000—will inevitably worsen. The borough's situation is very serious and I am pleased that the Government have now acted to review the 2000 index.
I will focus on the geographical access to services domain and the potential impact of a crime domain. There is no justification at all for the use of the geographical access to services domain. The researchers responsible for the calculation of the index claim that the majority of authorities support the domain in practice, but the reality is that the authorities that support the domain are predominantly rural and have very small populations. As far as I am aware, no such measure has ever been used anywhere else in the world to measure deprivation—in fact, there is evidence of the opposite measure being used. For example, I am told that in the calculation of the European Union 50 cities audit, high population density was used as a measure of deprivation.
The indicator measures the distance to key services for those persons and households living on income support. The number of people affected seems to be irrelevant. I am advised that in Chenies in the Chilterns, one of the most deprived wards on the domain, there are fewer than five people on income support, and it is possible that there is only one person on income support. It seems nonsensical to suggest that Chenies is more deprived than other wards because the one person who is on income support has to travel further to the post office. Compare Chenies with a ward in Birmingham, Sparkbrook that has 4,655 households on income support. Of the 10 most deprived wards on the domain, only two have more than 30 families living on income support.
The indicator measures the distance to key services as the crow flies—that is the only measure of access to services that is calculated as part of the domain. No consideration is given to waiting times, the quality of the service or any other factor that may be important in determining access to services.
At the time that the index was published in 2000, the academics who produced it said that the domain made very little difference to the overall result, yet they have consistently refused to support that view. I call on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to publish the data.

205WH*
Like other hon. Members, I would like to see what the index would look like without the domain included—then, we could all see what effect it has had.
The Minister with responsibility for local government at the time of the publication of the index, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), recognised that there was a clear gap because there was no crime domain. I believe that all the experts working in the field recognise that a crime domain is essential to any meaningful measure of deprivation. The absence of a crime domain fundamentally undermines the credibility of the index, so I am pleased that the basic crime data are now available for the whole country. I congratulate the Association of London Government and Greater London Enterprise Ltd., because they worked closely with two recognised experts in the field at the universities of Manchester and of Liverpool to identify robust methods of modelling that extend down to ward level. I very much hope that the Minister will confirm today that a crime domain will be included as an integral part of the review of the 2000 index.
There is no doubt that the index has a substantial effect on the funding of local authorities, particularly in London and other metropolitan and urban areas. I understand that the first report of the research team that carried out the work has just been published for consultation. I am advised that the deadline for comments is 15 January 2003. I hope that the review of the index, when published, will accept that anomalies inadvertently crept into the index that was published in 2000, and that appropriate changes will be made, so that the index can once again stand as a genuine and proper measure of deprivation.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his succinct speech.
11.51 am
Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate. She may not be aware that back in 1983, after encouragement from the then Prime Minister, I cut my political teeth in her constituency. At that time it clearly contained both affluence and very high levels of deprivation, and I doubt that it has changed much since. As a councillor in Hackney in the late 1980s, I had firsthand experience of similar levels of deprivation.
I have much sympathy with many of the points that the hon. Lady made. For example, she touched on the index of multiple deprivation and the ways in which, when being updated, as is happening now, it could be modified to include factors such as crime. I could add poor physical environment, to which I think she referred, and concerns about accessibility.
I shall echo one of the points, and not necessarily the whole range, made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who spoke of the concern about post office closures in urban areas. Like other hon. Members, I have had difficulty identifying precisely what those proposals mean to each of our constituencies. That
206WH
information has not been forthcoming and I have no idea which, if any, of the post offices in my constituency might be on the hit list, if such a thing exists.
Mr. Field: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one difficulty with the reinvention programme that is being put into place is that urban post offices have been systematically closed in the last three or four years? It is not clear whether those closures will count towards the reinvention programme or whether it will be a reinvention programme involving 3,000 losses as of the beginning of next year.
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. Clearly, we need to know what the baseline is so that we know the overall number of closures that we face.
Other hon. Members gave statistics relating to London in particular, but it is worth reeling off a few more. London paid at least £10 billion and possibly as much as £20 billion more in tax than it received in public spending. We all know that London is a city of extremes, with the highest percentages of both high disposable income households and low disposable income households. Hon. Members referred to the level of deprivation in individual wards. London has two thirds of the most deprived local authority housing estates and three of the five most deprived boroughs in England. A series of other statistics confirm the level of deprivation in London.
I shall consider three or four key points relating to funding, the first of which is whether funding is sufficient to make a difference. The obvious answer is that we do not know whether it is, because, historically, the take-up of available grants has been limited.
I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government intend to ensure a much higher take-up in future. If she replies that take-up is 100 per cent., we are clearly still failing to deal with fundamental issues such as homelessness in London, which in the third quarter of this year stood at 49,850—a 3.4 per cent. increase on the previous quarter. So far as I can tell, it is the highest figure since 1986, perhaps the highest since records were started. We know that it has a heavy knock-on impact on other services, such as the NHS. It is estimated that homeless people using accident and emergency departments as their GP surgery costs the NHS an extra £1 million a year.
Hon. Members will know that there are about 750,000 empty homes and 200,000 homeless households in England and Wales. Each region has sufficient empty homes to meet the demand. It is not true that all the properties are up in the north and all the demand in the south—the north does have relatively more empty properties, but there are enough in the south to accommodate the homeless households. One has to assume that funding remains insufficient because major problems such as homelessness are still a problem. London should not rule out extra funding to improve its deprived urban areas. I am sure that the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North supports London's Olympic bid as a means of bringing in an extra £1 billion of private investment, which would be targeted at the more deprived areas of east London.

207WH
Having examined whether funding is sufficient, we should move on to examine whether it is reaching the parts that other resources cannot reach. I apologise for using a local constituency example, but I know most about the northern wards in the London borough of Sutton—St. Helier, Wandle Valley and The Wrythe—which are comparable to the 20 per cent. worst wards nationally. The local authority estimates that Durand close, an estate in the Wrythe ward, requires about £30 million to regenerate. Various activities go on around the estate—neighbourhood wardens and nursery facilities, for example, and Learndirect has recently set up an outpost close by—but because it exists at the sub-ward level, it is not picked up by any of the usual indices. I have drawn attention to that problem before, so will the Minister say what progress has been made on producing statistics that recognise the sub-ward level? I have provided one example, but I suspect that every Member here today could identify many similar pockets of deprivation in their constituencies, which should appear on the Government's radar.
Another crucial issue is how easy it is to access the available funding. I am aware of long-standing complaints about the complexity of too many funding streams, which require significant management time to deal with. The Government have started to examine rationalisation, but I hope that the Minister can tell us more about their plans to make it easier for local authorities to access available funds. If there were enough funding and people could access it, would that be sufficient to regenerate our deprived areas? The Government need to consider other areas, such as the urban task force's identification of the need for a single remediation permit. Such a permit would facilitate the regeneration of brownfield sites by co-ordinating pollution prevention and control and tying in everything that needs to be done to deal with water pollution and contaminated land.
There is another area where more work is needed, even with sufficient funding. I am sure that the Minister has seen the latest news from Urban Forum, which has identified the need for the much greater involvement of community and voluntary groups to make the best use of available funding. The main recommendation of its latest report is that the Government need to invest in community and voluntary groups with as much passion and belief as they invest in business support and public services.
How do we make private funding available for business? I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the community development finance institutions that were set up specifically to lend in deprived areas and under-served markets, especially in ethnic minority communities, where it is difficult to get access to mainstream finance. Will the Minister set out what support the Government can give that sector?
Unfortunately, I do not have time to touch on issues such as policing and the resources for policing, the role that public transport can play in regenerating areas, or the role that the tram could play in regenerating the St. Helier estate in my constituency by extending to Tooting.
This has been a well informed and non-partisan debate. There is clearly much regeneration in London, as in other cities such as Manchester and Birmingham. That is welcome, but extremes of wealth and poverty are
208WH
still visible. The real test of the Government and their funding strategy will be whether they can provide funding for much smaller pockets of deprivation in our constituencies, as well as regenerating the larger and more visible areas of deprivation.
12.2 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to you for allowing me to catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on choosing a subject that is not debated enough in the House, and on making a constructive and worthwhile contribution. The hon. Lady's complex speech may, perhaps, be summed up in one sentence: poverty in London remains staggeringly high. I believe that that is the case. It is an indictment of us all in the House, and we need to stiffen our political resolve to do better to solve the problems of our inner cities. To deal with a point made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), that means treating the problem as an holistic whole. It does not mean setting the countryside against the cities; it means trying to produce a constructive solution for the whole country.
I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. I had very satisfactory meetings with her in her previous guise as the Minister with responsibilities for immigration. She was extremely helpful on several occasions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) touched on a key point. Other hon. Members touched on the Government's new index and how, paradoxically, the new measurements are making some of our most deprived areas, especially in London, worse off than they would have been under the old system. That is clearly unacceptable. I am sure that the Minister has listened carefully to what hon. Members had to say about that. Representations must be made by 15 January 2003, and I am sure that the Government must be thinking carefully about the matter to ensure that the transitional arrangements up to 2004 are satisfactory. We will put in place a robust system to deal with the situation after 2004.
If we are to solve the problems of inner cities, we need to treat them holistically and to plan on a much longer-term basis than at present. At the moment, we seem to be operating almost on a fire-brigade basis; we deal with desperate problems as they come along instead of having more strategic planning for the future. Although I was critical of the Mayor's spatial plan, it is a good initiative, but only if we start to make progress on implementing it. I should have preferred such a huge document to contain a progress schedule of what the Mayor would expect to have achieved by each year end, so that his expectations could be measured against the reality.
My hon. Friend has an interesting point: how do we measure accurately what is going on in inner cities, especially one that is as complex as London? The homeless charity Crisis, which used to be called Crisis at Christmas, has estimated that there are up to 400,000 hidden homeless in this country. If that is so, there are more homeless people than ever before, but we simply do not know whether it is so.

209WH
I asked Lord Falconer, when he was a Minister with housing responsibilities, to introduce a system that would come up with some robust numbers and information. If the debate achieves nothing else—this is not a political matter—I hope that it will lead to the adoption of such a system if we think that the census, of which there is increasing criticism, is unreliable. I do not necessarily blame the Office for National Statistics, as it is difficult to get people to complete forms, especially if they do not want to be seen to be living where they are. There are a number of reasons why people—not least my hon. Friend—adopt that attitude. I do not know his reasons for not filling in his census form; perhaps he will tell us. This is a serious problem because we cannot devote resources to problems if we do not have accurate figures. My most serious point for the Minister is to ask whether a system can be put in place accurately to measure the extent of the problem.
With the exception of London, there is a flight from major cities—such as Newcastle, Liverpool and Manchester. There is a flight into London, especially during the working day, but the more we improve transport systems, which we desperately need to do, the more people will commute longer and longer distances in order to work in London. We must try to overcome that problem by planning, which has a huge part to play in urban regeneration. We shall address the problem in more detail when considering the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill this afternoon.
We must start thinking out of the box in relation to our planning problems and try to secure developments so that people can live closer to where they work and to where they send their children to school. If we started thinking in such ways, we could solve many problems, including that of traffic congestion. In many parts of London, from 8 am until 9.30 am, and again at 3.30 pm until 4.30 pm, the roads are completely clogged by cars containing one parent taking one child to one school. If there were a system to ensure that the streets were safe so that people could walk their children to school, we could start to solve some of the problems of traffic congestion. If we started to use all the money that the Government have in an integrated way, we could begin to solve some of our problems.
My second most important point is about various Government budgets. I do not mean just the inner-city regeneration budgets—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is absolutely right; the regeneration budgets are far too fragmented. People do not know what they are for, and they are underspent at the year end. We are not getting the money from Europe that we should because we are too timid at claiming it, going outside the box and taking a risk. Surely it is better to try to get the funding, even if it is disallowed at the end of the day and the Government have to make it up. We should be pushing the barriers in Europe to get as much funding for our inner cities as we possibly can.
The Government could do far better for inner cities by employing joined-up thinking. They should use all their budgets in a joined-up, holistic way because there are many overlaps. The social services budget overlaps with the health budget, which overlaps with the education budget, which overlaps with the crime and Home Office budgets. Too many civil servants are
210WH
locked in their Departments and will not think outside the box because they deal only with their own Departments. Somehow we must get a system to improve co-ordinated thinking throughout the Government. If the Cabinet Office is the vehicle for that, it is not working; we must to do better.
There are many problems that we could begin to solve. Many people have said to me, "What is the hon. Member for Cotswold doing talking about urban regeneration?" I have been the party spokesman on the subject for three years, and during that time I have taken a great interest in the subject, which has taken me to some of the most deprived areas in the country. I have visited deprived areas in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham and Coventry. I have begun carefully to learn from some of the experts to whom I have listened, and I have begun to see some of the problems and some of the solutions.
The former hon. Member for Henley, Lord Heseltine, is not flavour of the month in my party, but during the 1980s the Conservative party carried out some of the most imaginative inner-city regeneration that has ever been seen in this country. He encouraged the public, private and voluntary sectors to work together and to think in innovative ways about how problems in our inner cities could be overcome; we should encourage more of that. We should encourage innovation, and the people with the energy to innovate, through Government funding and the bidding system.
I came across a very interesting quote from the former hon. Member for Henley:
"I accepted that it was possible to prop up these communities by increasing the flow of public money, but that didn't address the fundamental issue of concentrated poverty. We needed to attack the root causes of the problem. The teenagers with the skills, the young would-be homeowners, the aspiring entrepreneurs, the strong, all those with the resources 10 choose, had to be persuaded to stay".
As I said earlier, we must persuade people to stay in our big cities. If they leave, areas become run-down and the entire system starts to fall down. People must be encouraged to stay by making their areas vibrant places in which to live, where people will want to stay.
The former hon. Member for Henley continued:
"even to come back, live and invest—close to the areas of deprivation."
If we do not get all sectors investing in our inner cities, we shall never solve our severe problems. He added:
"It was necessary to tackle the infrastructure's problems, to improve dramatically the quality of the public services and to create an environment to persuade people that it was in their own interests to live and work there. In other words, one had to enable these communities to compete for their place in the sun."
Everybody must be involved. People need to be imaginative in bidding for Government money, coming up with community schemes and working together rather than arguing with one another.
I pledge that the Opposition will, if we can, help the Government to improve urban regeneration. It is unacceptable that we have some of the worst problems in Europe, but are one of the most prosperous countries in Europe. We must come up with more imaginative solutions: I have begun to open the box this morning; I ask the Minister to do the same. Let us get Ministers, the Government and civil servants all thinking more imaginatively, and surely together we can all come up with solutions to some dreadful problems.
12.14 pm
The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on her choice of subject and on the thoughtful way in which she introduced the debate. I have enjoyed the debate, which has been of a high standard, featuring excellent contributions by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I thank the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for his kind remarks. Whatever disagreements we may have on the detail of policy, nobody could doubt his passion and commitment to the agenda. Equally, nobody could doubt the passion and commitment shown by my hon. Friend in her work over the years, during which she has tirelessly raised the subject time and again. I shall try to deal with the important points that were raised during the debate.
Far too many people who live in our deprived urban areas suffer a double blow in that not only do they live in such areas, but the highest standards of public services are not available to them. The Government's programme of regeneration is about not only the new deal for communities, vital though that is, and other programmes such as neighbourhood management—on which my hon. Friend is keen—and neighbourhood wardens, but about how we use, or bend, mainstream programmes to ensure that services deliver for people. That is why one of my key objectives is to ensure that other Departments deliver on their floor targets. That may be one of the most bureaucratic official phrases ever invented, but it is an exciting concept. Floor targets are the social equivalent of the minimum wage. They set a minimum level below which standards should not be able to drop. That is every bit as important as all the programmes that we have. I point out to the hon. Member for Cotswold that it provides the joined-up approach to the mainstreaming of those programmes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North painted an accurate portrait of London as a place of absolute contrasts. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) spoke about affluent areas sitting side by side with much poorer areas, mentioning my constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green. As I am sure that he would agree, the picture is even more complex than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) talked about pockets of deprivation at sub-ward level. I could point to places in the most affluent areas of my constituency where a couple of extremely affluent houses will be next to a house in multiple occupation with acute levels of deprivation. That is what creates an acute situation in London. Of course, it is not confined to London, but is found in other areas as well.
Over several decades, successive Governments have failed too many communities, leaving a legacy of decline and despair in parts of our urban areas, and we know that we have a huge amount to do to turn matters round. In January, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will announce his plan for sustainable communities, aiming to create and maintain thriving communities in the long term.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister comment on one of today's most intractable problems? She
212WH
mentioned mixed estates. Does she agree that mixed estates are better than the current trend of sending those who fall below the norms of acceptable behaviour—antisocial people—back to the same estates, which will then become the new sink estates? We must think carefully about that problem.
Mrs. Roche: Some recent housing developments show encouraging trends in the other direction. I visited a housing development in the Thames gateway not long ago and was interested to see that it was a complete mixture of owner-occupied housing, rented housing and shared accommodation, side by side. I accept that we need to get away from the ghetto approach that was sometimes seen in the past. People are not designed to live in neat boxes, and planners and others should not categorise them as if they were.
As I was saying, we know how poverty and prosperity can live side by side. Areas in my hon. Friend's constituency have severe pockets of poverty. Golborne ward in north Kensington is in the most deprived 10 per cent. of English wards, whereas Hamilton Terrace ward in St John's Wood is in the least deprived 25 per cent. Such differences create huge issues for us all to deal with.
There has rightly been much concentration on the index of deprivation. I am extremely glad that we have had such a good debate on that, so soon after the publication of the first stage of consultation. We are consulting on options for updating the indices of deprivation 2000, to ensure that they remain a robust and up-to-date instrument for identifying deprived areas. We hope that that will meet the commitment made when the index was published in 2000, and we will look to update and revise it as substantial new data on small areas come on stream. We have also taken the opportunity to consider issues and debates that have emerged since publishing the indices, and whether refinements to the methodology are required.
A key task will be to assess whether we can develop indices for areas smaller than wards so that we are better able to identify pockets of deprivation. Several hon. Members have mentioned that, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Torn Brake). Other issues under consideration are revisiting previous attempts to include indicators on crime and physical environment and taking advantage of better data in existing domains. Reference has been made to those.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I shall try not to ask her to do so again.
The Minister has touched on a serious problem, which other hon. Members also mentioned. If, increasingly, we cannot rely on census data because people have not completed the forms, and we simply do not know how many people there are in an area, how will the index of deprivation be measured? I am very concerned about that, because if we cannot measure such things properly, we cannot divert the resources that are necessary to deal with them.
Mrs. Roche: I understand the remarks that have been made about census data. My hon. Friend the Member

213WH
for Regent's Park and Kensington, North dealt with the matter in some detail. She also mentioned the implications of population turnover. Given my experience in my own borough and constituency, I listened to her on that with heartfelt sympathy. We want to hear more about that matter from my hon. Friend, who has considerable expertise there, and all other hon. Members, and I hope that we will be able to have robust consultation on it.
The updating project is divided into three stages with extensive periods of consultation. The stage 1 report is already out for consultation. It sets out preliminary proposals for updating the indices, and deals with some points that have been raised during the debate. Stage 2 will result in a blueprint of our proposals for updating the indices; that will be subject to further consultation, lasting until early May 2003. The index will then be updated and published in summer 2003. We are therefore giving considerable time to dealing with updating. I am convinced that we must get it right, and I want to hear from the widest possible number of colleagues, as well as from those outside the House.
I shall deal briefly with the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham asked me about publication material. Throughout the process, I shall endeavour to publish as much material and data as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) raised the question of urban post offices. An announcement about the post office fund for urban areas will shortly be made. I hope that it will bring comfort to my hon. Friend.
The hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Cotswold, as well as others, referred to homelessness. It is a subject dear to my heart, but difficult to go into it at length now. If we are to eradicate poverty and deprivation in London and other urban areas, we must tackle homelessness and, in particular, the problem of families with children living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is why we have set ourselves challenging targets, and why I announced a
214WH
couple of weeks ago that I would be consulting in the new year to ascertain how we can give the targets statutory bite.
Last week, we announced additional money for the country—£7 million—for refuge accommodation. In addition, £1 million from the homelessness budget was matched by another £1 million from Comic Relief—its largest ever domestic donation, so many thanks to it—for setting up a national helpline. I refer to domestic violence in the context of homelessness because we know from figures that we are collating that, although it varies from region to region, women and children fleeing violent partners account for 16 per cent. of homelessness nationally. The connection is clear and the problem needs a joined-up approach. I take the point about more research on homelessness having to be done. We are committed to doing that.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned initiatives, including a review of area-based ones. He will know that we have made significant reductions in the number of such initiatives. I continue to keep a wary eye on new initiatives, which must pass strict tests. A great deal of work is happening locally. In Bolton, a local authority is putting its regeneration initiatives together to see what extra results can be gained.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned access to finance. That is an area huge enough to have a debate of its own. He was right to mention business funding, particularly access to business by black and minority ethnic communities. I hope that we shall return to that subject in detail.
This has been an extremely important debate. We have not dealt much with the new deal for communities, which I believe will significantly change the 39 areas to which it will apply over a long period. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham, who is the chair of the north Fulham NDC partnership. The neighbourhood renewal fund will kick-start mainstream programmes and bring the integrated funding for which so many hon. Members have asked. I am pleased to have made my contribution to this important area of policy, and to have listened to so many good contributions.

A303
12.30 pm
Mr. David Laws: I am delighted to have secured this debate on the A303, which I hope will be fairly constructive in the light of the fact that the plans that the Secretary of State for Transport unveiled last week are on the whole welcomed by myself and my constituents, and in surrounding constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
However, I start on one slightly discordant note—relating to the Government's policy on public transport—that is directly relevant to the amount of traffic that travels down the A303, and to issues of traffic safety and congestion. Only a couple of years ago, the Government were willing to give a clear commitment that they were considering upgrading the A303 to a four-lane road, and the Strategic Rail Authority was prepared to upgrade the railway line between Exeter and Salisbury from a one-track to a two-track line. It is to be regretted that the Government's proposal to improve the A303 has not gone hand in hand with an improvement to the railway line, which could reduce congestion.
The other day, I made the mistake of referring in a local newspaper article to the railway lines between Exeter and Salisbury as "Victorian in character". I have since been corrected by several constituents and non-constituents, who pointed out that in Victorian days—from 1870, I believe—there was a dual-track line between Exeter and Salisbury. I have been somewhat unkind to the Victorians, who maintained a better railway system in the area that was more efficient in terms of journey timings than the balance of road and rail today. I hope that the Minister will touch on the issue of dual tracking the railway line, and the relevance of that to the A303.
Broadly, I welcome the Government's plans for the A303, particularly the plans to dual the A303 eastwards from the Southfield roundabout near Ilminster, towards the junction with the M3. That will be an important step in helping to ease congestion on that route. It will open up a vital economic artery for the south-west, and should improve safety on many stretches of the A303 because people who get stuck behind slow-moving traffic are often tempted to overtake. That has meant that a number of stretches of the A303 have a very bad accident record.
I begin my comments on that part of the A303 by asking the Minister several practical questions about the newly envisaged plans. What timing is envisaged for the different stretches of road? We appreciate that projects take place at different periods. There is a plan to dual the A358 up to the M3—a subject to which I shall return—and there are also plans to dual the Ilminster bypass and the stretch of road from Sparkford to Ilchester.
Mr. David Heath: My hon. Friend mentioned the Sparkford to Ilchester road that he and I share, which is of great importance, sadly, because of the number of fatalities and serious accidents that have happened along that stretch. Does he agree that the plan—which has already gone through a public inquiry with no serious opposition—should be
216WH
prioritised by the Department, so that some of the funds available for improving the A303 could be spent at an early opportunity?
Mr. Laws: That is a sensible suggestion. I hope that the Minister will return to it and explain the timing status for different stretches of the A303, particularly in Somerset, and tell us which of them already has some planning consent that might allow work to be accelerated.
The second practical point concerning timing is that I hope that the A303 will not be dualled simply to speed up traffic from London towards the west. That would open up an artery of traffic that could lead to huge congestion in Somerset before the completion of the route that we hope will take traffic from the A303 Southfield roundabout to the M5. I shall return to that when I discuss the A358.
Another issue on which I want to press the Minister is grade separation on the A303 in Somerset, which is being considered in relation to Cartgate, near Yeovil, and Podimore junction. Do the Government intend to consider grade separation on those two parts of the route in the light of the fact that that could improve the flow of traffic and reduce the number of accidents on those stretches of the road? What measures is the Minister considering to deal with the environmental damage that could result from dualling those stretches of the A303? He will be aware that issues have already arisen concerning the A303 Ilminster bypass, which is a concrete road that the Government have promised to resurface properly when work is next done. The neighbouring villages close to the A303 bypass, including Seavington and Whitlackington, have experienced a lot of noise nuisance since the bypass was opened. They are hoping that planting and screening, as well as embanking, will take place when the A303 is dualled in that area, to prevent the noise nuisance increasing.
Mr. Heath: I promise not to interrupt my hon. Friend again. Road noise is a substantial problem on quite a long stretch of the A303, particularly in the area of Wincanton, where for some inexplicable reason the Highways Agency, far from increasing the planting, has cut down the trees that used to reduce the sound nuisance to local residents, with the result that the road now has a very noisy surface and the residents have nothing to shield them from the nuisance. We are told that resurfacing will not be done until 2005. Does my hon. Friend share my view that the Government and the Highways Agency can do better in providing relief for local residents?
Mr. Laws: I certainly share my hon. Friend's views on the matter and hope that the Minister has detected that this is a common concern in the villages that abut the A303 in Somerset.
The choice that the Government must make between dualling the A358 from the Southfield roundabout to the M5, and dualling over the Blackdown hills, is obviously controversial; even people within the immediate area have different views. The Government were right to say that they wish first to explore the option of dualling the A358 from the Southfield

217WH
roundabout to the M5, instead of going over the Blackdown hills. They were also right to suggest that they may make that choice for a number of reasons.
First, there will be a major environmental issue if the A303 over the Blackdown hills is dualled. Such an environmental controversy could result in the project becoming bogged down for many years while objections are heard. We all know that during such projects Governments come and Governments go, and as suddenly as a road scheme goes on to the agenda, it can be taken off. If the rest of the A303 were dualled from the M3, we would face the problem of much larger volumes of traffic coming down the A303, then having to go on to single-lane roads, either over the Blackdown hills or up the A358. That is my first reason for hoping that the Government will go for the option of dualling the A358.
The second issue is that the A358 is a major trunk road in the region. It has key economic significance for Dorset and south Somerset, and is a major artery from there to the vital route of the M5. At present, it is one of the most congested roads—if not the most congested road—in Somerset, and has a very bad accident record. We hope that economic, environmental and safety benefits could be secured by improving that route.
Will the Minister be a little more open and informative than the Secretary of State was in the House of Commons the other day about the inquiry into the practicalities of the A358 route? Will he tell us when it will start, and give a broad idea of when a conclusion will be reached? The Minister may have heard about the frustration of many people in the Blackdowns area when it was announced last week that the Government are to set up another inquiry into the issue. Many people in the area feel that the Government should make a decision quickly, whichever route they take. Gill Bromley, a member of the Buckland St. Mary parish council, was quoted in the local newspaper:
"This has been going on for so many years and they are putting it off and putting it off. This is a non-decision, we are no further forward".
I hope that the Government will come up with a decision on the route very soon.
I also hope that the Government will work with Somerset county council—for which this is a tremendously important highways issue—and that the Minister will suggest to officials in the Highways Agency that they should open communications with the county council to discuss the project's practicalities. I hope that when he speaks to his officials he will make the vital point for Somerset and the Blackdowns that this part of improving the A303 cannot be left to the end. It must be done as soon as possible if we are not to end up with a huge bottleneck at the Southfield roundabout, and if the extra traffic coming down the dualled A303 from London and the south-east is not to be faced with a choice of two very unsatisfactory single-track roads.
What is the Government's thinking on the manner in which a dualled A358 will join the M5? The Minister will be aware that the junction there is already extremely busy, and that many cars and lorries that use the route do not turn west to go to Devon and Cornwall but turn east. Are the Government considering a new junction on
218WH
the M5 close to Taunton, and will they consider a southerly and a northerly junction for the A358 at that point?
Are the Government determined to ensure that the A358 scheme is as environmentally sensitive as possible? Is the Minister aware that many people still suspect that the Highways Agency and the Department for Transport have always favoured dualling the A303 over the Blackdowns, and that they might be tempted to bring forward a scheme for dualling the A358 that is not as environmentally sound as it could be, so as to reopen the question of dualling the Blackdowns route? Will the Minister assure us that he will not allow that, and that he will ensure that any A358 dualling is done in as environmentally sensitive a way as possible?
I shall wrap up my comments by talking about what will need to happen if the Government go ahead and opt for the A358 route directly up to the M5 rather than dualling the A303, the Blackdowns route. Many people who live along the Blackdowns route in villages such as Buckland St. Mary and nearby Newtown are concerned about existing traffic volumes on the A303, and about the bad safety record of the A303 through the Blackdown hills. The safety and congestion issues must be addressed. There is therefore a need to ensure that if the A358 route is chosen, the Government will put in place alternative measures to take traffic off the Blackdowns route.
How does the Minister intend to instruct the highways officials to design the A358 route to the M5 so that it becomes the natural highway taking traffic from the east to the west of the country? Will signing and grade separation be used to encourage people going to Devon and Cornwall to use that route rather than the Blackdowns route? Will he also consider downgrading the classification of the A303 Blackdowns route so that people are no longer encouraged to use it?
The Minister will be aware that a series of safety measures relating to the Blackdowns route has recently been considered, including a reduced speed limit of 50 mph and speed cameras. Will he ask his highways officials, as part of the wider project, to consider whether more fundamental safety measures are needed to make the route less attractive to through traffic and safer for people using it?
There is a very dangerous junction—the Eagle Cross junction—on the Blackdowns route, which has a high accident rate. The local feeling is that traffic lights or a roundabout are needed to deal with the safety issues there. The Minister may wish to write to me about that detailed point. I am grateful to him for participating in the debate and I look forward to hearing his comments. Doubtless I will be in contact with him about the issue over the months ahead.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing the debate and on the way in which he has conducted it; he has made his points very strongly on behalf of his constituents.
I noted his welcome for the thrust of the announcement that the Government made last week in relation to the south-west area multi-modal study. He

219WH
talked about bringing schemes forward and about extra spending on the rail scheme. He is a pragmatic and sensible man. If he were not, his leader would not have made him the number two in the Liberal Democrat shadow Treasury team. I believe that he has been put in charge of finding spending cuts of £2 billion. I am certain that he would not want any of the schemes that he mentioned today to be part of those cuts.
Mr. Laws: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: Of course. The hon. Gentleman is probably about to tell us where the cuts will take place.
Mr. Laws: I fear that, although that would fascinating, it would take up too much of our time.
Will the Minister explain why a proposal to upgrade the rail link between Exeter and Salisbury to dual track appeared in the Government's spending plans two years ago, but has now disappeared? I say that in the most constructive way possible.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman said that it would take a long time to tell us where all the spending cuts will take place; I am sure that Hansard will have recorded that.
There are priorities in such matters. The hon. Gentleman will know, having the job that he does, that one has to face priorities. That is particularly true when one is in government; it is different when one is in opposition.
The A303 is an important trunk road. It is part of the strategic route from London to Exeter, which also includes the M3 and the A30. On Tuesday last week, the Secretary of State announced to the House the Government's decision on the London to south-west and south Wales multi-modal study, known as SWARMMS. The study was established in April 2000 to look at congestion on the M4 and M5, the impact of tourist traffic, the potential to transfer freight on to railways and the need for improved road services to reduce pressure on roads.
The study also considered the future of several on-hold road improvements on the A303 in Wiltshire, Somerset and Devon and on the A38 in Cornwall. The schemes on the A303 within the study's remit were as follows: the Ilminster bypass improvement; the Sparkford to Ilchester improvement—which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath); the Wylye-Stockton Wood improvement; the Chicklade Bottom-Mere improvement; the Ilminster to Marsh improvement; and the A30 and A303 Marsh to Honiton improvement. Those stretches of the A303 are the remaining single carriageway sections of the road. They have a high rate of accidents—above the national average.
The Government are mindful that this is a popular holiday route, particularly from the south-east to the south-west. The rest of the route is already dual carriageway. Sections of the road are severely congested, particularly in the busy times of the summer when holiday traffic is in evidence. The route is also important for business because it links the south-west to other parts of the country. It provides access to the channel tunnel, the M3 and the M25.
220WH
We realise that there are sensitive environmental issues relating to that corridor. Four of the schemes are located in areas of outstanding natural beauty. The Ilminster to Marsh and the Marsh to Honiton improvements are located in the Blackdown Hills area of outstanding natural beauty.
We all know that increased pressure and congestion are experienced not only on the M4, but on the M5. That is particularly prevalent in the summer months. The SWARMMS study considered the need for improvements to the parallel railway routes that might reduce congestion on the M4, M5 and A303. Those are the routes out of Paddington to Bristol and Taunton, and out of Waterloo to Exeter. On the second line, the section west of Salisbury is single-track, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, prevents further improvements from being made to journey times and service frequency on that section. However, the study concluded that, although improvements to the Waterloo to Exeter route were desirable, they were unlikely to take significant amounts of traffic from the A303. That is one issue that informed our decision.
In the discussion that we had on the statement last week, the hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the re-dualling of the Salisbury to Waterloo railway line. I can only reiterate what the Secretary of State said at the time; that is a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority, and because of the other huge and competing demands, we are unable to take that scheme forward at the moment.
The SWARMMS study concluded that the whole route from the M3 to the A303, the Exeter route, needed to be improved to provide a second dual carriageway; a high-quality road from London to the south-west. Compared with the M4 or M5, the M3 from London to Exeter is shorter by some 25 miles, with obvious savings in time, costs and pollution. An improved A303 could provide an alternative and more reliable route from the London area or from the south-west to the south-east.
As I said, the A303 and A30 west of Ilminster go through a nationally important environmental landscape. The hon. Gentleman will know that our policy on areas of outstanding natural beauty is that we do not support infrastructure developments that damage the landscape if there is an alternative. The consultants who worked on the SWARMMS study considered that there was an alternative to improving the A303 and A30; directing traffic north from the A303 at Ilminster on to the A358 to join the M5 at junction 25 at Taunton.
The A358 is already a busy section of road, catering for regional north-south movement, and the hon. Gentleman has raised that route in past correspondence with the Department. However, the consultants recommended that route as an alternative to improving the A303 and A30 through the Blackdown Hills area of outstanding natural beauty. They thought that that solution was less environmentally damaging.
The south-west regional assembly has given us comprehensive views on the SWARMMS study. It undertook public hearings on the recommendations and decided in the end to ask us to dual both the A303 and the A358. What was not clear in its representations was why both those routes needed to be improved to meet the strategic needs that the study was reviewing.

221WH
Unfortunately, life is not that easy, and there are a number of problems with the consultants' solution. First, the A358 route is longer than the direct route from Honiton to Ilminster. Secondly, it will direct traffic to the congested junction on the M5 near Taunton. Thirdly, it does not provide an extra route all the way from the M3 into Cornwall that is totally separate from the M4 and M5. In other words, extra traffic will be put on the Taunton to Exeter part of the motorway. Taunton is designated in regional planning guidance for the south-west as a focus for sustained growth over the next 10 to 15 years.
However, the route has the considerable benefit of not requiring the A303 and A30 to be improved through the Blackdown Hills area of outstanding natural beauty, as that could damage the historic landscape and a number of wildlife sites nearby. We understand that if the A358 were chosen for improvement, there would still be residual traffic, environmental and safety problems in particular to be addressed on the unimproved A303 and A30. We are therefore mindful that some improvements would be needed on the existing route if the A358 option went ahead.
The hon. Gentleman asked how the inquiry on junctions on the motorway was progressing. I would not dignify it by calling it an inquiry, but the Highways Agency is certainly considering the technical specifications and all the other issues that relate to the provision of the A358 alternative route, including any extra motorway junctions either side of Taunton that may be required.
Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. Will he ensure that his officials consult Somerset county council highways officials on that inquiry, and does he expect the inquiry to report with a final conclusion on whether the A358 will be made a duel carriageway in the next 12 months?
Mr. Jamieson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the relevant parties will be consulted. That is the thrust and the spirit of the multi-modal studies. We want this local input. Indeed, we have had enormous input from Somerset county council and all the other county councils that have been a central part of the inquiry. I cannot predict how long those discussions will take, but we hope that they will not stretch too far into next year. We want the matter to be resolved fairly soon, because it is key to progress on the entire route.
There are planning and environmental issues relating to the whole route. Which parts of the route will be dealt with first will be a matter for careful consideration. I take into account the comments made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, as we realise that
222WH
several benefits might be attained by dealing with some parts of the route before others. We want to take the views of the county councils and Members of Parliament into account when we go ahead with the plan. We must balance the benefits to road users with the environmental impact, but whatever decision we take will upset one group or another. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are not yet in the position to take that final decision. However, I hope that we will be able to do so shortly. We are, however, clear that the south-west needs the two high-quality routes.
As I said, parts of the M4 and M5 are suffering problems of severe congestion, and the targeted programme of improvements lists four improvements to tackle some of those problems. More importantly, hon. Members will be pleased to hear that we have accepted the SWARMMS recommendations for the area east of Ilminster. The Highways Agency continues to work with the statutory environmental bodies to prepare the schemes to allow their entry into the TPI. Part of that work includes looking at junctions and roundabouts on the route, and making improvements at roundabouts such as Cartgate arid Podimore. That should allow us to announce a comprehensive package of measures, some of which we hope to be able to deliver quite soon.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will ask why we cannot immediately ask the Highways Agency to press ahead with the construction and why there is a need for further delays. The answer is that we are not yet ready to include all these schemes in the TPI, but the Highways Agency is working with various bodies to see how we can make rapid progress on the schemes. Those discussions mean that I am confident that the schemes will be an improvement on others that we promoted in the past. They will incorporate the latest mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impact. I noted the comment about the trees. I am aware that the Highways Agency is the second largest planter of tress in England—second only to the Forestry Commission—and I am proud of that green aspect of the work of my Department.
As hon. Members have suggested, not all the schemes are in the same state of readiness. We intend to be in a position to make further announcements in the first half of 2003 on some of the priorities. I appreciate that improving the A358, as SWARMMS consultants recommend, would have local benefits, as well as facilitating longer-distance travel from Devon and Cornwall. We recognise that the north-south route from Dorset and Somerset to the M5 and north of Bristol is important, and we will get detailed advice from the agency and produce some answers on that as soon as possible.
We have had a short but useful debate. If I have failed to cover any issues in the short time available, I should be happy to correspond with the hon. Gentleman to answer his questions more fully.

Domestic Violence
12.59 pm
Vera Baird: The subject of the debate is battered women who kill. A few years ago the headline court cases of Sara Thornton and Emma Humphreys brought these women and their predicament to the public's attention. They were long-term sufferers from domestic violence who, in the end, killed their violent partners. Before their cases, the jurisprudence of the murder made little allowance for the effects of battering on such women.
In a majority of the 20 or so cases that come before the courts every year, the women are convicted of murder. They are convicted because they fit badly into the principal defence of self-defence, which has developed in the law with men—the majority of violent criminals—as the model. Classically, a case might involve a woman with no convictions, who would probably never harm anyone in other circumstances, but ends up a killer. The husband may often appear a nice, charming man, but is all too frequently drunk. He is sorry when he has been violent and promises to change; she believes it, but blames herself because she cannot make him want to change enough. She is economically dependent on him and if she left, her children would become part of a poor, emotionally disadvantaged one-parent family—so she stays. The men keep telling the women that they cannot leave and the women become convinced of it.
The police, the Crown Prosecution Service and others know that a woman in these circumstances may typically be assaulted 35 times before she seeks any help. When she does, the man sees it as the first step towards her leaving him, and it becomes the most dangerous time for the woman. Many women who leave partners in those circumstances have sometimes been followed and forced to return, and they often continue to be intimidated long after leaving. The need for secrecy about the location of refuges makes the dangers all too clear. It is difficult to disappear: they will have friends in common and he will have the right of access to the children.
Let us examine the problem from the male point of view. Almost half the total number of women killed in England and Wales are killed by a partner or ex-partner, usually when they are about to leave or just after they have left. In contrast, only between 6 and 8 per cent. of men killed in England and Wales are killed by their female partners.
Sometimes the circumstances do lead women to kill. Characteristically, the woman kills the man with a single blow, often with a kitchen knife, when she is under attack from his fists. She will be charged with murder, which is unlawfully killing someone, intending to kill them or to cause them serious harm. Four defences are possible, but the only ground for an acquittal is self-defence: the other three would reduce the conviction to manslaughter. Self-defence is the main defence, but it is the one that women fit least well into.
Self-defence is lawful when someone is attacked and he can use such force as is reasonably necessary to defend himself, but the force must be proportionate to the attack and it must stop when the attack is over. The measure of proportionality is seen through his eyes, so it has a subjective aspect.
224WH
More than 90 per cent. of violent offences tried by the courts are committed by men. Unsurprisingly, defences evolved in the courts to deal with male responses. Self-defence, with its requirement for proportionality, is effectively made for two reasonably physically matched men fighting. In that sense it is fair, allowing the attacked man to defend himself until he feels safe from further attack. However, is it fair to women who are attacked and use self-defence, especially to women who are victims of repeated domestic violence?
Women's situations and responses are different from men's. Women see themselves as physiologically somewhat fragile. They are not used to fighting, or to feeling the need to fight back, and they are less likely to have had training or practice in measuring force to make it proportionate in a fight. On average—I am the exception that proves the rule—women are smaller than men, and also weaker.
Women say in evidence that if they defend themselves using proportionate force to a man, not only does that not stop the attack, but it provokes worse violence. In the case of domestic violence, if a man has attacked a woman before—perhaps not in a life-threatening way, but inflicting pain, cuts and bruises and causing discomfort and depression—the woman will be afraid of provoking more of the same. If she has to fight back, therefore, she will not be calm and will panic too much to be able to measure a response. Self-defence entitles the woman to defend herself until the attack stops, but to do that she will have to stop the attacker completely. She will, at least, have to make him unconscious, and to do that she will need a weapon. We are now moving away from a proportionate response to his fists.
Many women say that they use a weapon to put the man down and thereby stop the attack, as an observer might say. However, they are gripped with the certainty that he will get up and attack them again straight away. In the middle of an attack when the man is down, they feel that they will feel safe only by hitting him more to ensure that he stays down. That is not convenient testimony, but it is what women have told psychiatrists, many years after their convictions, in anonymous surveys that have nothing to do with getting an appeal or retrying the issues.
The need to go beyond proportionate force to stop an attack only takes a woman to the point where a man is entitled to go in law—to defend herself until the attack stops. There is a subjective element to the matter, which must be looked at from behind her eyes. She does only what a man is entitled to do, but in her case it involves disproportionate force and so takes her outside the realm of self-defence.
Women do not fit the model of self-defence as evolved by the courts. That is not surprising, because violence has been male territory. The mismatch with self-defence goes a step further. There are cases in which self-defence is coupled with what seems to be delay. A man's previous act of violence is over and he is asleep, but the woman is sure that when he wakes up he will attack her again. She is convinced that she cannot leave, and feels like a hostage, waiting for him to wake up and torture her. If she strikes out at that point, it might seem even further from the male model of self-defence.
In trials in Canada, expert evidence is allowed to explain that mismatch, and the processes through which the woman goes. In the United States, the Washington

225WH
state Supreme Court has accepted that any instruction to a jury that limits force to proportionate self-defence for a woman is not giving her the equal protection of the law. In England, neither of those things are the case. The jurisprudence is male. Without expert advice, women's reactions are not understood and may seem counterintuitive. Consequently, self-defence is a poor defence option for a woman facing a murder trial. Its biggest disadvantage is that if that defence fails, she will be convicted of murder and receive a mandatory life sentence.
Women should, but dare not, invoke self-defence, and settle for a partial defence such as provocation, reducing their conviction to manslaughter. Consequently, the understanding of women's different reactions, of the kind that I have outlined that have been accepted in Canada and the United States, are not being put before English judges and juries because women dare not do it. No attempt can therefore be made to develop a female model of self-defence. That can be remedied only by a review of cases of battered women who killed, and that issue should be looked at carefully in the domestic violence review that the Government will carry out.
Unlike self-defence, the defence of provocation—the partial defence to murder—has adapted to women's needs. Provocation reduces murder to manslaughter if the killing is done during a sudden and temporary loss of self-control caused by things said or done that would also make a reasonable person lose their self-control. The courts are increasingly starting to understand the way in which women react to repeated provocative conduct, which is what domestic violence turns out to be. In the famous case of Emma Humphreys, the whole history of violence against her by her pimp was put in, to show her loss of self-control when she finally stabbed him in its fullest context.
That is good for future cases, but it raises a second problem. When case law moves the law on, it is not so well known as when a new statute is passed. Although the cases are famous, what they say is not. It is likely that many women before Emma Humphreys would have been convicted only of manslaughter, had the full extent of the provocation against them been included. The legal rule is that once the law has been declared, and once, as in this case, cumulative provocation can be brought into evidence, it is deemed always to have been the law.
A number of individuals have emerged from prison—usually in response to publicity—to appeal and to benefit from the changes in the law brought in by the Court of Appeal. They were convicted before cumulative provocation was allowed. They have appealed since, and their appeals have been allowed. Diana Butler from Yorkshire, Josephine Smith from East Anglia and Donna Tinker from the north-east are three who have appealed and benefited from that law change. They had the help of campaigning groups such as Justice for Women and Southall Black Sisters, but neither of those groups, nor any other, has the resources to identify and to prepare the appeals that must be outstanding for other women on a case-by-case basis. It is likely that there is a group of women scattered around the prison estate, serving sentences for murder, who were convicted before the law changed and who would
226WH
now only be convicted of manslaughter. They are now entitled to an appeal and do not realise it. This is an unusual position; indeed, I imagine that it is unique.
There are particular difficulties in relation to domestic violence victims. They do not readily talk about what they have suffered, and so they are even less likely to respond to the publicity and to come out; nor is it known how many women are serving sentences in England and Wales for the killing of violent male partners. North American research finds that between 70 and 80 per cent. of women serving murder sentences are serving them for the murder of their partner as a result of domestic violence. The English academic Horder sees no reason to think that the proportion would be significantly different here. I have asked parliamentary questions to try to find out how many women who have killed their partners are in prison, but no record of that is kept. The Home Office's best estimate is that 14 women are in prison for the murder of violent male partners. At the time of the debate, however, the Justice For Women group is supporting 19 women who are in exactly that situation, so there is clearly a significant underestimate.
Miscarriages of justice, as some of those cases may be, should go to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Appearing before the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the chair of the commission, Sir Frederick Crawford, was asked when he would exercise the commission's power to self-refer, whereby it would not wait for an application, but would consider cases that might be unjust and take them to appeal itself. Sir Frederick said that he would want to exercise his self-referral power on precisely the sort of case to which I have referred, but the commission has never done so. One imagines that it is too over-burdened to self-refer at all. In the case of Josephine Smith, which I mentioned earlier, it took three years from drafting grounds of appeal to the review commission sending it to the Court of Appeal.
What is to be done? Five, 10, 20 or 50 women may be serving life sentences, and perhaps many of them should be released now that the law has changed. They may be mothers. They may not know what they are suffering. I have pointed to two different ways in which I seek help from my right hon. Friend the Minister—two different ways in which the law on murder causes injustice to women victims of domestic violence who snap and kill.
Margaret Moran: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for raising an important subject and eloquently setting out the issues relating to women who are imprisoned for murder following domestic violence. Does she agree that an additional point is that a woman is doubly victimised when she is a victim of murder? A perverse incentive in sentencing means that it is to the perpetrator's benefit to kill the victim of domestic violence, because there will be no victim impact statement and no voice to counter allegations that she had aggravated his anger and thus caused him to murder her. Should not that be taken into account in the domestic violence review, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred?
Vera Baird: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention and I agree with her. Further to her point, domestically violent male killers of women

227WH
have committed frequent criminal offences. Let me put it another way. Women victims of domestic violence who become defendants have had repeated criminal offences committed against them by the perpetrators, against whom they turn. However, many men who kill their partners have had no such experience. Their cause for complaint is that the woman nagged them, or said that she was going off with the gym instructor, as happened in a famous case a short time ago.
It is well known that domestic violence affects one in four women, although battered women who kill are few. If the criminal justice system continues to treat them harshly, that sends out a clear message that the state is not prepared to understand the ramifications of how domestic violence affects women. If women electors are to have confidence in the system, the two features to which I hope I have pointed adequately in this short debate must be changed.
1.18 pm
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on obtaining the debate. Having heard her introduction, I believe that on this occasion the appellation "learned" is justified. I do not use it in every circumstance, but perhaps I should. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), who chairs the all-party group on domestic violence, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), who is also actively involved with these issues.
In addition to being the Home Office Minister with responsibility for crime reduction, including the reduction of violent crime, I chair the inter-ministerial group, which meets regularly to co-ordinate the Government's response to domestic violence. I hope to say a little about that later if I have time.
Domestic violence is an unacceptable violent crime that claims the lives of two women a week. It accounts for a quarter of all violent crimes and nearly half of all female murder victims are killed by a partner or an ex-partner. It is important for the Government and many other agencies to make a priority of stopping domestic violence and bringing its perpetrators to justice. The British crime survey indicates that there were 635,000 incidents of domestic violence last year. That estimate may increase as we improve the survey methods to make them more confidential, and as more incidents are reported. Certainly, one in four women is affected by domestic violence in her lifetime. I shall attempt to set out the legal position as I understand it, and then respond to the two particular areas of concern raised by my hon. and learned Friend.
The law on homicide does not distinguish between men and women, but statistics do not support the view that, in similar circumstances, men are more likely to be convicted of manslaughter and women are more likely to be convicted of murder. On the contrary, the statistics for England and Wales show that in convictions for partner or ex-partner homicides, a far greater percentage of men are convicted of murder and a greater percentage of women are convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter.
Over the past six years, on average, three women a year were convicted of murdering their partner or ex-partner—14 per cent. of cases—compared with an
228WH
average of 36 men a year, or 37 per cent. of cases. The law must deal fairly and appropriately with those who kill, recognising the variety of circumstances in which killing may take place. We believe that the law on homicide is appropriate and that courts are able to take account of the experiences of women who have been the victims of domestic violence.
Self-defence is a defence that can be used by both men and women. It is partly a common law defence, but the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that a person may use
"such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime".
The courts must therefore consider any defence on a case-by-case basis. Self-defence is a complete defence to a charge of murder; if successful, it results in the acquittal of the defendant. Self-defence is available to those who use such force as was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances to prevent injury to themselves, their family or their property. If made out successfully, it is a complete defence to injury or killing. It is for the jury to decide whether the force used by the defendant was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. That is not a matter of blow-for-blow proportionality. A person suffering an attack may use the force that they honestly believe is reasonable in the circumstances, depending on the nature of the threat that they face. The courts take account of what was reasonable in the circumstances for someone in the defendant's shoes. For example, allowances are made for panic in the heat of the moment or for the fact that the defendant was small and frail and the criminal large and threatening.
If I understood the argument of my hon. and learned Friend correctly—I hope that she will forgive me if I did not—it was concerned less with the way in which the primary legislation is stated and more with the degree to which current practice encourages, or otherwise, defence solicitors and their QCs to argue a case in court. Through her professional efforts, my hon. and learned Friend has played her own part in raising the profile of defences and the arguments that can be made. I am sure that what she said today will reach a wider audience than those of us who are in the Chamber.
It is true that self-defence cannot be used in the anticipation of violence towards the defendant. Although I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend made a case this morning for changing that, I am aware that some groups have argued for such a change in primary legislation. It is very difficult to see how one could legitimise killing in anticipation of violence, as some appear to have suggested. I do not think that legitimising the planned killing of another person should be advocated as a way of dealing with violence. My hon. and learned Friend did not do that, but I am aware of some of the wider debates and arguments.
As my hon. and learned Friend said, provocation may be used as a partial defence, reducing the offence to manslaughter. As she set out very well, case law confirms that response to an act of provocation need not be instantaneous and that the cumulative effect of prolonged abuse may be taken into account when assessing the impact of a final provoking incident. She raised the interesting and perhaps unprecedented question of whether that change in case law has created an identifiable group of imprisoned women who have

229WH
not yet had the opportunity to exercise that defence. That is a provocative question, as would he the question of why they were not able to exercise that defence. However, my first reaction to it is that the power to act on that lies not with the Government but with others, such as the commission to which she referred. However, that was an interesting and important point.
We have focused on court processes and the legal position of women who kill in circumstances of domestic violence. To close the debate, I should like to restate the importance of the Government's wider strategy—to try to stop the abuse at the root of such killing and to provide proper support for sufferers of such abuse so that other, better remedies are available to them. We are taking steps, although we must build on them further, to protect women from domestic violence. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, for example, provides a remedy for behaviour causing harassment or fear of violence. Criminal evidence legislation has given greater support to vulnerable and intimidated witnesses.
There are many good projects up and down the country. Yesterday I visited the women's support unit in Cardiff, which provides very effective support to women who suffer from domestic violence and helps them through the complex legal procedures involved in housing, benefits and so on. It is important that women suffering from violence in their relationships have real options; somewhere safe to go, financial support and help in finding new schools for their children if necessary. They need information, help and support throughout the process, including ensuring that the offender is prosecuted and punished for his violent behaviour.
In short, we must do everything we can to help victims before matters reach the point where lives are lost—most fundamentally, the lives of the two women a week who are murdered at the hands of their partners or ex-partners, but also the lives of the men murdered by women who have suffered from domestic violence, although that is much rarer.
Much work is being undertaken. We are working with the police service to pilot the use of risk assessments, so that we can better identify the women who are at greatest risk and give the right priority to planning the safety and protection of victims. We want to ensure that assistance and support are in place so that domestic violence incidents do not go unreported. It is important that the measures on which we will consult in the new year ensure that the protection that the law is meant to offer women who suffer from domestic violence is real and can be upheld. More widely, we need to increase safe accommodation choices for women; we announced measures for doing so last week.
We must ensure that the health service plays a fuller role in supporting women who are victims of domestic violence and that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service give a consistent and appropriate response. Fundamentally, we must also continue to promote education and raise awareness so that the sense of the unacceptability of domestic violence as a violent crime is shared throughout society.

Post Office
1.30 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate the Post Office universal service obligation, not least because it is of particular importance to rural areas and areas in which residents have set up small businesses in their own homes.
My constituency is one of the most rural in southern England, and employment is concentrated in the new high-tech industries. There are many self-employed computer specialists, and such people depend on the postal service being prompt, reliable and universal.
It is remarkable that, in the 21st century, the postal service is struggling to meet the standards that it met in the 19th century. Nevertheless, we are to see not only a switch to a single daily delivery in the UK—the scheme has been piloted recently in my constituency, which is part of my motivation for this debate—but less efficiency, a more impersonal service and the decimation of a rural and urban post office network. Above all, we are witnessing a significant threat to the principle of the universal postal system—one that provides daily collections and deliveries throughout the country at a uniform price.
The universal service obligation was written into law by the Postal Services Act 2000. That states:
"a universal postal service is provided if",
except under exceptional geographical or other circumstances,
"at least one delivery of relevant postal packets is made every working day to the home or premises of every individual or other person in the United Kingdom"
and with uniform postal costs throughout the UK. I shall return to the point that the Act stipulates not a second delivery but at least one delivery every working day. It is important to appreciate the wider picture.
It is widely accepted that the Royal Mail will face much more intense competition in coming years. That prospect has the potential for improving postal services in some respects, but there are also clear dangers. As the Public Accounts Committee concluded earlier this year, more competition could mean reductions in low profit services and an erosion of the principle of a universal service at a uniform tariff. As elsewhere in our public services, the mantra of competition and efficiency can translate into the removal of basic service provision.
In response to my questions at the Public Accounts Committee hearing on 25 March, the chief executive of Consignia—as it then was—admitted that the uniform tariff, under which the cost of postage is the same wherever one lives in the UK, could be scrapped as more competition is introduced. He accepted that that could damage rural communities in particular. Yet the Government have led us to believe that liberalisation is secondary to the statutory requirement, under the 2000 Act, for a universal service, with attention to the needs of pensioners, those on low incomes and those living in rural areas. To quote the Secretary of State:
"We have … established that Postcomm's primary duty is to ensure that a universal service is delivered. Any proposals or decisions from Postcomm about market opening must be subsidiary to that duty."—[Official Report, 14 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 297.]

231WH
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to assure my constituents that that remains the Government's commitment, and that the growing concerns in west Berkshire about a decline in service will be addressed. Many of the problems faced by Royal Mail, in terms of failing to meet targets and declining profits, are the product of inefficiency only in the sense that inefficiency stems from inadequate investment.
At the same hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, it emerged—again in response to my questions—that the Post Office's losses are in large part due to its profits being eaten up by the Treasury over many years rather than being reinvested in new technology and services. The subsequent Public Accounts Committee report found:
"Consignia would have liked to invest more than £1 billion in recent years on greater automation of its sorting process, and in improving the quality and condition of its sorting offices. This was in the context of profits totalling some £3.8 billion (in cash terms) made by the post office over the last 20 years, around 70 per cent. of which (in cash terms) was paid over to the Government."
Those Members who, like me, have made a pre-Christmas visit to a local sorting office will be aware that most are woefully out of date, badly maintained and dilapidated.
Postcomm's proposals envisage a faster timetable for liberalisation than that envisaged by the European Commission. Postcomm envisages full market opening by 2007, while the Commission is talking about 2009, subject to an impact study. That raises the prospect of European postal companies having greater access to the UK's domestic postal market than the Royal Mail does to theirs.
As I have already noted, the 2000 Act does not stipulate a second delivery. It stipulates only
"at least one delivery every working day".
There is nothing wrong with that statement in itself, but there must also be regard to ensuring equity—fair and equal treatment for households and businesses across the UK—and reliability of delivery. Sadly, neither of those conditions is presently being met.
Newbury was one of the pilot areas for the single daily delivery, which started in July. Interestingly, three of the pilot areas were so horrified by the way in which the scheme worked that they refused to continue it after just two weeks. The basic components of the scheme were outlined in a press statement on 10 July. "Customers" receiving 20 or more letters a day on a regular basis were to get a delivery before 9 am. Most other customers were to receive their mail between around 9 am and "lunchtime". Customers could choose to pay for a delivery before 9 am, at a cost of £62.50 a month, or they could opt to collect their own mail free of charge.
Businesses could pay £184 a month for deliveries from 6 am if they were within 10 miles of the delivery office. In terms of outcomes, the magic word was "efficiency", which was defined in two senses. First, Royal Mail told us that there would be a "saving", as distinct from a cut, of around £350 million a year. Secondly, more letters would be delivered "on time", which means the next working day after posting.
232WH
There are some basic absurdities about the scheme. The cut-off point of 20 or more letters a day seems completely arbitrary. In fact, rather than paying £62.50 a month, it was cheaper for some of my constituents who were just under the limit to mail themselves empty envelopes, to bring themselves over the threshold. I am told that only one man in the country—not a constituent of mine—opted to pay the £14 per week charge.
More fundamental issues are also at stake. For those of us who are interested in maintaining a public service ethos in postal services, the language used in press statements of that sort rings immediate warning bells. People are no longer local residents; they are now called "customers". Cuts are cloaked in the language of "efficiency" and "savings". One journalist pointed out that in reality, it is not the second delivery that is being removed, but the first.
Last month, Newbury residents were told that the pilot scheme had been a great success. In a letter, which infuriated many of my constituents, addressed to "customers", Royal Mail informed residents that
"The pilot has … confirmed our view that a single delivery is the right way forward."
Postwatch took a more critical view. From the outset, the public watchdog insisted that
"customers' opinions and views be given full consideration when final decisions are made."
It also stated:
"Whilst we recognise that Royal Mail needs to make changes to provide a more efficient service, we cannot support those changes without a true understanding of customers' opinions and experiences."
Postwatch also noted that
"the trials were inadequate in duration and were run over the awkward summer period. Customers did not have enough time to gauge whether the new delivery arrangements were acceptable."
The fact that the Post Office thinks that the trial was such a triumph is contrary to the remarks about it that I hear from my constituents.
What lessons can we learn from the pilot scheme in Newbury? As for equity, small businesses in west Berkshire were put at a disadvantage when the Royal Mail singled out particular areas for the pilot. Later delivery times disadvantaged small businesses more generally, particularly in areas such as west Berkshire where many people work from home. The £184 per month for earlier delivery may be small change to larger companies, but not for small businesses or the self-employed.
Anne Karpf, writing in The Guardian, pointed out the fundamental point—that
"by separating off ordinary customers from business ones"
Royal Mail
"has irrevocably fissured the postal service in one of its fundamentals—universality."
As she pointed out, public service is not supposed to discriminate. Why—in social terms, as distinct from considerations of profit—is the so-called granny post deemed less important than express parcel deliveries for those able to pay? A cross-subsidy is not, or should not be, a term of disrepute, because it lies at the heart of the public service ideal.
What about reliability, a concept that is quite distinct from the narrow market conception of efficiency? Certainly the experience of my constituents—or should

233WH
I say "customers"?—does not support the conclusions reached by Royal Mail. In a letter, one of my constituents stated:
"On at least 3 occasions the post has not arrived before 3.30 pm, and on many occasions it has been after 1 pm. I have had 3 letters this week, that I have had to put back in the post box because they were not for me. Two letters last week arrived 5 days after the post mark date, so I presume they suffered the same fate. A neighbour told me that number 29 got number 27's mail and number 31 got number 29's mail. I had a letter delivered after 6 pm one night so I expect that had been delivered to someone else in the road."
Is that the "consistent service" that "customers" were promised in the letter that they received from the Royal Mail in November? The shift from the individual local postman who knew the area and the houses to which he delivered the mail to "teams" has resulted in less reliability, not greater efficiency. For businesses, reliability is more important than the number of deliveries in a single day, but the switch to a single daily delivery has not secured greater reliability.
There is a strong impression that the Royal Mail reached its conclusion before the pilot began. That is suggested by the fact that its press announcement in July stated:
"Following the pilot schemes, a national roll-out of the single delivery will start in the Autumn and be completed by October 2003."
That was the stated intention before the pilot scheme had even started. Local experience of the changes and the views of people in Newbury and elsewhere have simply been ignored, because they had been discounted from the start.
In the past, the Government have said that the universal service guarantee comes before any commitment to liberalisation, but that guarantee is now under attack. A scheme that has failed to deliver a better service to my constituents—it has worsened it—has been given a nationwide stamp of approval. Is that the price that we are being asked to pay for the Government's failure to unlock the resources needed for investment in and modernisation of the postal service?
A report published this week by the New Economics Foundation warns that community life in Britain's small towns and villages is declining, with the closure of one fifth of our corner shops, grocers, high street banks, post offices and pubs in less than a decade. The report raises the prospect of a "ghost-town Britain", with town centres in terminal decline and many of our communities isolated and excluded. Post offices are part of that equation. More than 4,000 post offices have closed since 1981. In 1997, 20 per cent. of rural post offices were the last shop in the village.
The post office is more than just another business; it is a vital social service that helps to sustain community life. The mail is an instrument of social inclusion, affordable for even our most deprived citizens and available to even our most isolated. If that is to remain the case, the Government and Royal Mail must rethink their priorities.
1.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on securing
234WH
this debate on the Post Office universal postal service obligation. I have listened to his concerns and welcome the opportunity to respond to them. I speak as the granddaughter of a former postmistress in Bucklebury, Berkshire, not very far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. Rendel: It is in my constituency.
Miss Johnson: Indeed.
A key feature of the structures that were established in 2000 was regulatory reform to promote and protect the consumer interest. The Postal Services Act 2000 established not only an independent regulator, Postcomm, to ensure the provision of the universal postal service and to oversee the regulated postal market but a consumer council, Postwatch, which is specifically charged with responsibility for addressing the needs of consumers. The establishment of an independent regulator was widely sought, particularly by Post Office management and the trade unions, to enable the company to have commercial freedom, at arm's length from government, to operate in an increasingly competitive and dynamic market in which consumers increasingly have a choice of communication means and supplier.
The hon. Gentleman made some slightly disparaging remarks about the role of competition, but I am sure that he recognises, as we do, that it is a good feature of a market when it works well and that it provides choice and cost opportunities for consumers.
The consumer interest was and remains a main feature of the Government's reform of the postal services; therefore, maintenance of a universal service is the highest priority. Our commitment is well demonstrated by the 2000 Act, which enshrined the universal service obligation in UK primary legislation. It was a significant step forward for consumers and the UK postal service. Daily postal delivery service to every address in the UK at a uniform rate remains at the very centre of our approach to postal services, and the legal obligation to maintain universal service is the regulator's primary duty.
Let me turn to the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised about postal liberalisation in Europe. Concerns have been expressed that the UK is moving faster than Europe, but what is happening in the UK is consistent with European trends systematically to open the letter post market to competition. Some member states have already opened their markets in whole or in part, and the European Union has adopted a framework that provides for others to do the same.
Within the parameters set by the European directive, the UK and other member states determine the most appropriate course of action for their own markets. In the UK, Postcomm has a duty to ensure that the market is opened to competition in a way that meets the needs of consumers and is consistent with its primary duty to ensure provision of a universal service.
The hon. Gentleman commented on the single delivery. He does not need my advice about talking to the local management about some of the particular problems that his constituents have experienced; I am sure that he does that on a regular basis, as we all do when such issues arise on our own patches.

235WH
Royal Mail is a business and is run on a commercial basis. Delivery processes are a commercial matter for the company. It cannot continue to lose more than £1 million every working day; it must get a grip on its costs in order to be in a position in which it can provide the quality of postal services that we require in the future. The second delivery had become an anachronism. It was delivering just 4 per cent. of the UK's mail while accounting for 20 per cent. of Royal Mail's delivery costs; obviously there was a huge discrepancy. Reducing that disproportionate cost will make a positive contribution to retuning the company to profitability. Royal Mail wants to save £350 million gross a year by reorganising deliveries.
The new services have been tested as part of pilots during the summer. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's uncharitable suggestion, the experience of that will be properly reviewed by Royal Mail. That is not to say that Royal Mail does not intend to roll out the new delivery specification during 2003, but it does mean that we can assess the impact of delivery changes on small businesses—something that was specifically assessed during the pilots.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks on his constituents' experience of delivery during the pilot arrangements that were tested this summer, and these will be studied by Royal Mail. The whole point of a pilot is that it is a dry run that tests whether things work as well as they should and works out how to respond if they do not. I am sure that Royal Mail has learned from the experience.
On rural and urban services, the performance and innovation unit recommended options—Postcomm advised us of them last year—for supporting the rural network of post offices from 2003. On 2 December we announced the details of a £450 million funding scheme to assist the rural network during the next three years, subject to European state aid clearance. That funding is part of an overall financing package for the Royal Mail group in line with the Secretary of State's announcement in June.
On the rural network, the Government have made a firm commitment to prevent avoidable rural closures before 2006; we have made available a £2 million fund to support community post office initiatives. We will make available £450 million—£150 million a year from 2003 for three years—to help continue to provide access in rural areas where it could not otherwise be sustained on a purely commercial basis. Much is being done to support the rural network.
On the urban network, the Government have earmarked £210 million for the reinvention programme, obtained the necessary green light from the European Commission for the arrangements and, on 15 October, received Parliament's approval for the expenditure.
Details of a £15 million scheme to support post offices that are invaluable to the communities in deprived urban areas throughout England will be published shortly. An equivalent programme was launched in Wales on 15 November, and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are developing or considering similar schemes. Those actions are supported by substantial funding, making it clear that the Government have lived up to their commitment to implement the PIU report. The Government maintain that commitment.
236WH
I shall turn to the operation of Royal Mail as a universal service provider, and to our measures to put it on a stronger footing. The Postal Services Act 2000, together with the arm's-length relationship that the Government have given the company, provides the commercial freedom that is necessary to enable Royal Mail to respond to competition and meet consumer demand successfully. The Government's 2001 manifesto commitment to
"high-quality, universal postal services, and a dynamic Post Office which can thrive in a world of technological change and increased competitive pressure"
meant that restructuring the company was a key priority. To put Royal Mail on a stronger footing, we have taken action to help the company face the future. We have already spoken about the package of reforms, and this year we have further strengthened management by appointing a new group chairman, Allan Leighton, and securing a new chief executive—to be announced—for the post office network. A new human resources director will also take up post early in the new year and the non-executive team has been further enhanced with four additional directors. The appointment of a new chief executive for the mail business and a new chairman of Post Office Ltd. is under way.
Royal Mail Group is already implementing a radical restructuring programme and over the next three years, under the renewal plans announced by Allan Leighton, the losses will be eliminated and the company returned to profit.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments about visits to post offices and the information that Royal Mail Group sent to us. We were all encouraged to do something and, in my constituency a week or two ago, I took up the offer and visited the Hatfield regional distribution centre of Royal Mail Group. It was very interesting to see how it has changed much of what it was doing over the past six months or a year to provide a more efficient and effective operation. That has resulted in a real turnaround in the performance of that distribution centre, and it is the sort of action we are expecting to see. It shows that real improvements can be brought about in the way in which things are done, and in efficiency and outcomes for customers, whether that involves businesses, individuals or business-to-business transactions.
That all came on the back of Lord Sawyer's examination of the deep-rooted industrial relations problems in Royal Mail Group. I congratulate all concerned on the resulting reduction in the level of strikes. We believe firmly that greater commercial freedom in the public sector is the right policy. The company's renewal plan is to address the problems of the past and restore profitability.
The package of measures introduced from June onwards has enabled the company to utilise the reserves of £1.8 billion on its balance sheet, which represents accumulated past dividends and cash generated by the business—that picks up a point that the hon. Gentleman made about the history. It enables the company to fund the necessary investment in Royal Mail Group's business to implement the renewal plan and to provide support for the nationwide network of post offices—subject, when necessary, to the relevant state aid

237WH
clearances. We remain committed to ensuring that continuation of the universal service is secured efficiently and effectively.
Mr. Rendel: As the Minister seems to be coming to a conclusion and we have a minute or two remaining, can I take her back to the question that she attempted to answer on the timing of the introduction of competition? She said that the introduction of competition in this country two years before Europe comes within the European directive. Does she agree that, nevertheless, the fact that Postcomm decided to introduce competition in that way seems to mean that Royal Mail Group will not be allowed to try to run postal services in Europe until two years after the equivalent European services have been allowed to try to run services in this country?
Miss Johnson: That issue needs to be considered carefully, but there has already been an opening up of
238WH
markets in parts of Europe. It is appropriate that, within the parameters set by the European directive, the United Kingdom and other member states can determine the most appropriate course of action for their own markets. Obviously, we believe that, in the UK, we are moving at the right pace for our own market and its opportunities. A competitive business in the shape of Royal Mail Group represents a great competitive opportunity for the company and I am sure that the group actively recognises that.
We are looking to the continuation of a universal service to secure a viable and successful network of post offices to complement the improvements that we hope Royal Mail Group will achieve and to see an effective and efficient delivery service secured throughout the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Deaths in Custody
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the report on deaths in custody which was consulted upon last year; and if he will make a statement. [86115]

  The Solicitor-General
  In May 2002 the Attorney General issued a consultation paper on the prosecution process in cases arising from a death in custody. During May and June he received many thoughtful responses, including the views expressed by those who attended a seminar which he held in May. The Attorney General had originally hoped to make a statement before the House rose in July, but was compelled to conclude that to do justice to this difficult exercise in the light of further developments following another case, the issues would need further work. He continues to be engaged on the project and expects to be able to publish a statement in the New Year.

  Emergency Services (Hoax Calls)
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many individuals suspected of hoax calls to the emergency services have been referred for prosecution to the Crown Prosecution Service since 22 November. [85176]

  The Solicitor-General
  Two individuals have been charged in relation to hoax calls made during the first fire fighters strike which began on 13 November 2002.

  Since 22 November 2002, three individuals suspected of making hoax calls to the emergency services have been referred to the CPS by the police.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Rugby World Cup
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what representations she has received from the governing bodies of(a) Welsh and (b) Scottish Rugby Union in respect of the English Rugby Football Union's bid to host the Rugby World Cup in 2007; [86930]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the English Rugby Football Union's bid to host the Rugby World Cup in 2007; [86926]

  (3) what assessment her Department has made of the likely (a) economic benefit to the United Kingdom and (b) benefit to amateur rugby of hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2007. [86928]
  678W
  Mr. Caborn
  This Department fully supports the English Rugby Union's very strong bid for the 2007 Rugby World Cup. The RFU has already demonstrated its ability to host major events by providing first class facilities, organization and hospitality as co-host of the 1991 and 1999 Rugby World Cups.

  To date this Department has not received any representations from the Welsh and Scottish Rugby Unions in respect of the bid.

  It is anticipated that the UK would benefit from the additional tourism that this event would bring. The Rugby Football Union has commissioned an independent assessment of the potential economic impact of the 2007 Rugby World Cup from Bone Wells Associates. The assessment estimates that the tournament would bring approximately 175,400 visitors to the UK, spending approximately £100 per day over an average of 14 days. Hosting a major sporting event of this size would also provide UK companies with a number of opportunities for commercial sponsorship and investment. The Rugby Union is working on its own assessment of the economic impact of the 2007 World Cup and should make the results available after the final bids have been submitted on 15 January 2003.

  The Rugby Football Union's bid document predicts that the 2007 Rugby World Cup will generate substantially enhanced income streams for investment in the development of grass roots rugby.

  Sports Events (Hosting)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department takes to ensure that all United Kingdom sport can benefit from the hosting of international sports events by an individual home nation. [86929]

  Mr. Caborn
  The sporting benefits of hosting major international sports events are not easily quantified. The economic benefit to the United Kingdom as a whole of individual Home Nations hosting such events is clear—not least, because spectators from overseas often combine their visits to events held in the Home Nations with visits to other areas and Nations of the UK.

  It is also clear that the hosting of major events by individual Home Nations generates benefits in terms of sporting prestige to the whole of the UK. However, it is not clear how the Government could ensure that such benefits accrue directly to sport in other parts of the country.

  Sports Governing Bodies (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost has been to her Department of providing financial assistance to sports governing bodies preparing bids to host international championships since 1997. [86927]

  Mr. Caborn
  The provision of financial assistance to governing bodies for the preparation of bids for major international events is the responsibility of UK Sport or, in the case of the Football Association's bid for the 2006 World Cup, of Sport England.
  679W
  No payments have been made by the Department to governing bodies to assist in the preparation of such bids since 1997. Direct bid-related expenditure by the Department in that period has consisted only of 20,000 to cover the travelling costs of the Prime Minister's Special Envoy in his work in support of the 2006 World Cup bid.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Visitor Centre
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the honourable Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission if the Commission will examine the case for locating a new parliamentary visitor centre outside the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. [87378]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Yes. The House of Commons Commission has considered the feasibility study produced by the consultants Haley Sharpe, and has asked them to carry out further studies of possible sites off the Parliamentary Estate. In the New Year the Commission will consider these studies, together with the views of the Modernisation and Finance and Services Committees, the Domestic Committees, The Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association United Kingdom Branch, the Inter-Parliamentary Union British Group and individual hon. Members. A final decision would need to he agreed with the authorities of the House of Lords.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lend-Lease (Second World War)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister how much debt arising out of the Second World War US/UK lend/lease programme remains outstanding; what recent discussions he has had with President Bush on this issue; whether he has sought its cancellation; and if he will make a statement. [87760]

  The Prime Minister: The Government intends to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lent in 1945. Therefore no representation to the United States Government has been made.
  680W
  For details of the loans, I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Economic Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr Spink) on 28 February, Official Report, columns 1437–9W.

SCOTLAND

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list for her Department(a) those Comprehensive Spending Review 1998 targets that were outstanding at the time of the statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review 2002, (b) progress on such targets since then and (c) the expected date when targets not yet achieved will be met. [87700]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999 and thus the department had no targets arising from the Comprehensive Spending Review 1998.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servants
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many civil servants are employed by her Department; and how much money was spent by her Department in the last 12 months, broken down by local authority area. [87177]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Data on the location of civil servants is not available in the format requested, except at disproportionate cost. Information on the number of civil servants is provided in Table D of Civil Service statistics 2001, published in June 2002. Information on the breakdown of Departmental expenditure by local authority area is not available.

  Public Appointments
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many public appointments he has made, other than judicial appointments, since 1 June 2001. [85050]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  407 non-judicial Ministerial public appointments were made to the Lord Chancellor's non-departmental public bodies from 1 June 2001 to 31 October 2002. This figure includes re-appointments.
  681W

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the programme of work of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. [85943]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Commissioner for Public Appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie, regulates, monitors, advises and reports on ministerial appointments to public bodies within her remit. Her work and advice are highly regarded and respected by the Government.

  Government Websites
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans his Department has to harmonise Government website addresses. [85945]

  Mr. Alexander
  As outlined in my answer to my hon. Friend in June all central Government Departments use the .gov.uk domain name.

  A Domain Naming Approvals Committee oversees the approval of every domain name request. Requesting Departments and the Committee are steered on eligibility by guidelines and standard conventions.

  The Office of Government Commerce (managers of the.gov.uk domain name) and the Office of the e-Envoy have agreed to establish a working party and early in the new year will conduct a formal review of the naming guidelines and how they are applied.

  E-Government
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to support progress in e-government delivery of the Government's targets for public services. [85939]

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to support progress in using e-government to deliver Government targets for public services. [85942]

  Mr. Alexander
  In support of our commitment to radical public service reform, we are investing £6 billion over the next three years in e-enablement.

  This includes, for example a new commitment to extend broadband connectivity within our education system and major IT enablement in the national health service.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many employees work in the Regulatory Impact Unit. [87606]

  Mr. Alexander
  As at 2 December 2002 the Regulatory Impact Unit employed a total of 59 staff. This figure is rounded to full time equivalents.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list for his Department(a) those
  682W
  Comprehensive Spending Review 1998 targets that were outstanding at the time of the statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review 2002, (b) progress on such targets since then and (c) the expected date when targets not yet achieved will be met. [87690]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Department published progress against all its outstanding PSA targets in its departmental report 2002 (CM5429) published in June 2002. The Department's autumn performance report 2002 (CM5732) is due to be published and presented to the House shortly.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Warm Front Programme
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has for publicising the Warm Front Programme to those in receipt of a designated benefit. [86970]

  Mr. Morley
  Warm Front is the Government's main programme to provide assistance to households in the private sector in England through the provision of a range of measures including heating and insulation to those in receipt of certain benefits.

  Warm Front is administered by two Scheme Managers—TXU Warm Front Ltd. and the Eaga Partnership. The Scheme Managers have responsibility for marketing and publicising the scheme and in doing so work in partnership with many organisations. These include local authorities, targeting recipients of council tax and housing benefit, local health and social services providers and other groups in the charity and voluntary sectors.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are being taken to improve the performance of the Government's warm front scheme. [86679]

  Mr. Morley
  Warm front is the Government's main programme to provide assistance to households in the private sector in England through the provision of a range of measures including heating and insulation to those in receipt of certain benefits. Since its launch in June 2000, warm front has provided assistance to over 400,000 households.

  We are currently carrying out a review looking at the effectiveness and impact of warm front including consideration of the operation of the scheme including the eligibility criteria and range of measures offered.

  Agricultural Waste
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to publish draft regulations on agricultural waste. [87224]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: We are preparing the draft regulations necessary to apply the provisions of the Waste Framework Directive to agricultural waste. A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is also being prepared. On completion, the draft regulations and RIA will be issued

  683W
  for consultation with the farming industry and other interested groups. A firm date for publication of the consultation paper has not yet been set but our aim is to publish it early in the new year. I will ensure that a copy of the consultation paper is sent to the hon. Member when it is issued.

  Animal Welfare Bill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), on 26 November 2002,Official Report, c.230–31W. on the Animal Welfare Bill, if she will list those organisations that she or her officials have met to discuss the issue of pheasants in the proposed Animal Welfare Bill; and if she will make a statement on the balance of views of those organisations. [86123]

  Mr. Morley
  The organisations that have expressed views on the rearing of pheasants and were invited to the stakeholder meetings on the Animal Welfare Bill include:

  Animal Defenders

  British Association for Shooting and Conservation Compassion In World Farming

  Farm Animal Welfare Council

  Game Conservancy Trust

  Game Farmers Association

  League Against Cruel Sports

  National Gamekeepers Organisation

  RSPCA

  Union of Country Sports Workers

  A number of other organisations have given their views on pheasant rearing and husbandry in response to the consultation on the bill.

  I am satisfied that I have received a balanced range of views.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people received more than £1 million in payments from the Common Agricultural Policy in the last year for which information is available. [86434]

  Mr. Morley
  In the 12 months ending June 2002, four claimants received more than £1 million each in direct grants and subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy in England. The payment of direct grants and subsidies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was the responsibility of the devolved authorities in that period. In addition, 130 claimants throughout the UK each received payments in excess of £1 million as part of the market support measures of the CAP, such as export refunds, for which traders as well as farmers are eligible. The figures exclude any compensation received for animals slaughtered during the FMD crisis for reasons of disease control or animal health. We are unable to identify the total payments received by any individual or business making applications using more than one name.
  684W

  Diversification
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 20 November, Official Report, column 157W, on diversification, when the research study will be published. [85365]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The research study is nearing completion and it is expected that the report will be published early in 2003.

  Farmers' Markets
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to promote farmers' markets. [87410]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The Government does recognise that farmers' markets can bring benefits for both producers and consumers. In support of this, there is provision under the England Rural Development Programme and the Agricultural Development Scheme for grants for activities such as the establishment of farmers' markets.

  More specifically, to encourage the development of farmers' markets we have:
  written to all Local Authorities drawing their attention to the benefits which farmers' markets can bring;
  provided funding towards the National Association of Farmers' Markets' training and marketing programme and their accreditation scheme;
  sponsored the Local Government Association Guide on Farmers' Markets;
  and
  provided funding to help with the re-launch of farmers' markets following the foot and mouth crisis.

  Food Prices
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average(a) farmgate and (b) retail price was of (i) one kilogram of (A) beef, (B) lamb, (C) pork, (D) chicken, (E) turkey, (F) bacon, (G) dessert apples, (H) potatoes, (I) tomatoes, (J) cauliflower and (K) peas, (ii) one pint of (A) milk, (B) cream and (C) yoghurt, (iii) one dozen eggs and (iv) one litre of (A) English wine and (B) brandy in (1) 1980, (2) 1985, (3) 1990, (4) 1995 and (5) 2000, distinguishing between (I) organic and (II) conventionally produced foodstuffs. [86309]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: The farmgate and retail prices of conventionally grown foodstuffs, where available, are shown in table 1. Prices are not collected for English wine or brandy. Small quantities of cream and yoghurt are sold at the farmgate direct to consumers at retail prices. The amount of processing taking place between farmgate and retail varies from commodity to commodity; an indication is given in the table. Farmgate prices include produce destined for highly processed food, which is normally lower quality and sells at a lower price. Changes to the level of processing over time will impact on the trends shown within the table.
  685W
  Prices of organically produced food are only available for 1998 onwards. Indications of farmgate prices in 2000

  Table 1. Conventionally grown produce

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1995

  2000

  Indication of further processing

  Beef

  Farmgate value1

  £/kg

  1.44

  1.67

  2.00

  2.31

  1.69

  Retail value2

  £/kg

  2.21

  2.83

  3.55

  3.82

  3.80

  Slaughtered, trimmed and cut

  Lamb

  Farmgate value1

  £/kg

  1.28

  1.67

  1.68

  2.28

  1.90

  Retail value2

  £/kg

  2.18

  2.72

  3.17

  3.96

  4.52

  Slaughtered, trimmed and cut

  Pork

  Farmgate value1

  £/kg

  0.87

  1.03

  1.12

  1.20

  0.95

  Retail value2

  £/kg

  1.17

  1.45

  1.84

  1.88

  2.00

  Slaughtered, trimmed and cut

  Chicken

  Farmgate value3

  £/kg

  n/a

  0.90

  0.87

  0.84

  0.71

  Retail value4

  £/kg

  1.48

  1.76

  2.16

  2.03

  2.23

  Slaughtered

  Turkey

  Farmgate value3

  £/kg

  n/a

  1.41

  1.21

  1.24

  1.30

  Retail value

  £/kg

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Slaughtered

  Bacon

  Farmgate value1

  £/kg

  0.87

  1.03

  1.012

  1.20

  0.95

  Retail value2

  £/kg

  1.48

  1.91

  2.50

  2.71

  3.10

  Slaughtered, trimmed and cut

  Apples, dessert

  Farmgate value5

  £/kg

  0.26

  0.37

  0.50

  0.44

  0.36

  Retail value6

  £/kg

  0.53

  0.70

  1.04

  1.01

  1.08

  Packing and grading where off farm

  Potatoes

  Farmgate value5

  £/kg

  0.05

  0.05

  0.10

  0.19

  0.08

  Retail value7

  £/kg

  0.13

  0.18

  0.33

  0.70

  0.67

  Packing and grading where off farm

  Tomatoes

  Farmgate value5

  £/kg

  0.49

  0.49

  0.70

  0.60

  0.75

  Retail value6

  £/kg

  0.99

  1.06

  1.43

  1.15

  1.50

  Packing and grading where off farm

  Cauliflower

  Farmgate value5

  £/kg

  0.19

  0.21

  0.24

  0.28

  0.24

  Retail value6

  £/kg

  0.22

  0.36

  0.58

  0.62

  0.57

  Packing and grading where off farm

  Peas

  Farmgate value8

  £/kg

  n/a

  0.25

  0.52

  0.45

  0.57

  Retail value

  £/kg

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Milk

  Farmgate value9

  £/pint

  0.07

  0.09

  0.10

  0.14

  0.10

  Retail value6

  £/pint

  0.17

  0.23

  0.31

  0.36

  0.34

  Pasteurised, bottled and delivered

  Eggs

  Farmgate value10

  £ dozen

  0.44

  0.48

  0.54

  0.53

  0.53

  Retail value6

  £ dozen

  0.68

  0.92

  1.13

  1.31

  1.60

  Packing and grading where off farm

  1Source: MLC, Defra

  2 Source: MLC for 2000, other years derived by applying RPI for the item to 2000 value

  3 Average producer price (p/kg carcase weight). Source: Defra

  4 Chicken, roasting, fresh. Source: ONS

  5 Average farmgate prices for 1985–86, 1990–91, 1995–96, 2000–01. Source: Defra

  6 Source: ONS

  7 Old white loose potatoes, not including pre-packed. Source: ONS

  8 Peas, green for market. Source: Defra

  9 Source: MMBs, Defra

  10 Source: Defra

  Table 2. Organically grown produce

  Farm gate value

  2000

  Beef

  £/kg

  2.60

  Lamb

  £/kg

  3.00

  Pork

  £/kg

  2.20

  Chicken

  £/kg

  3.75

  Turkey

  £/kg

  n/a

  Bacon

  £/kg

  n/a

  Apples, dessert

  £/kg

  1.00

  Potatoes

  £/kg

  0.25–0.30

  Tomatoes

  £/kg

  n/a

  Cauliflower

  £/kg

  0.70

  Peas

  £/kg

  2.57

  Milk1

  £/pint

  0.16–0.17

  Cream

  £/pint

  n/a

  Yoghurt

  £/pint

  n/a

  Eggs

  £ dozen

  1.40

  686W
  are shown in table 2, where available, as provided by the Soil Association. There are no retail prices available.

  1 All milk was sold as organic in 2000. From early 2001, the market for milk became oversupplied and some organic milk was sold into the conventional market.

  Notes:

  1. n/a—not available.

  2. No farm gate values prior to 1998 are available.

  3. No retail prices are available

  Fish Quotas
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the EU's plans for white fish quotas and their effects on the UK. [87013]

  Mr. Morley
  The cuts in total allowable catches proposed for 2003 by Commissioner Fischler would correspond, in fisheries which are of critical interest to
  687W
  the UK industry, to a reduction of 80 per cent. in fishing effort on cod and haddock and of 75 per cent. on whiting. I do agree that we cannot ignore the scientific advice that radical action is needed to prevent the collapse of the cod stocks, but the action proposed would have a devastating effect on our fishing industry. I am determined to negotiate an alternative approach which will give sustainable fishing opportunities to our industry, while still respecting the scientific advice and leading to stock recovery.

  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further consideration she has given to the recommendation of the report of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group; whether legislation is planned to bring these reconciliations into law; and if she will make a statement. [87141]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 18 March 2002, Official Report, column 129W.

  I can confirm that the Government intend to introduce proposals for new salmon and fresh water fisheries legislation to implement the agreed changes when parliamentary time permits.

  EU Fisheries Council
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on(a) the outcome of the EU Fisheries Council Meeting on fish quotas for 2003 and (b) the effect it will have on Northern Ireland's fishing fleet. [87099]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: Total allowable catches and quotas for 2003 are due to be determined at the meeting of the Council of Ministers which started on the 16 December. The Council is likely to last for several days, and I will of course be happy to comment on the outcome when it is known.

  Fixed Assets
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total value is of the fixed assets held by her Department, its agencies, non-departmental public bodies and public corporations. [85010]

  Margaret Beckett
  The total value of the fixed assets held by DEFRA, its agencies, NDPBs and public corporations is £2,625,564,000 (as detailed in the table):

  £000

  NDPB

  Land and buildings

  Plant and machinery

  Total

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  0

  0

  0

  British Potato Council

  518

  129

  647

  Countryside Agency

  3,488

  789

  4,277

  English Nature

  3,612

  5,202

  8,814

  Environment Agency

  —

  —

  1,962,211

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  0

  163

  163

  Horticultural Development Council

  0

  52

  52

  Horticulture Research International

  44,982

  1.608

  46,590

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  4,649

  601

  5,250

  Milk Development Council

  0

  41

  41

  National Forest Company

  1,551

  0

  1,551

  688W

  £000

  NDPB

  Land and buildings

  Plant and machinery

  Total

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  57,386

  3,331

  60,717

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  2,945

  524

  3,469

  Wine Standards Board

  0

  7

  7

  Total

  119.131

  12,447

  2,093,789

  Total DEFRA and agencies

  531,775

  2,625,564

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans there are to fluoridate water supplies in the UK; and what health risks have been identified with fluoridation. [86305]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  We consider that decisions to fluoridate a water supply should be taken locally. We are seeking to ensure that, where a local community wishes to consider this option, they have easily accessible and reliable information on the effects of fluoridation. The only risk that has been identified is that of dental fluorosis or flecking or mottling of the teeth which, where it is judged to be cosmetically unacceptable, can be treated by dental polishing or, in extreme cases, by veneers.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultation has taken place with relevant groups regarding the fluoridation of water supplies in the UK; and if she will make a statement on her assessment of the impact of fluoridation on oral health. [86307]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  We funded research projects undertaken by the University of York in 1999–2000 and the Medical Research Council in 2001–02, aimed at strengthening the evidence base on fluoridation. Steering groups including consumers, people sceptical about the benefits of fluoridation, doctors, toxicologists and dentists contributed to these projects. The reports concluded that fluoridation achieves a 14.6 per cent. reduction in dental decay and that further research is needed to improve our understanding of this beneficial effect.

  Illegal Food Imports
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what quantities of illegal imports of food were found in each of the last three years, broken down by port of entry. [86931]

  Mr. Morley
  A central database of illegal animal product seizures notified to Defra was set up in April 2001. The database holds details of seizures of illegal imports of products of animal origin, including foodstuffs.

  Port of entry

  Weight (kg)

  From April 2001 to March 2002

  Aberdeen

  12

  Avonmouth

  2

  Belfast City Airport

  11

  Belfast International

  17

  Birmingham Airport

  240

  689W

  Port of entry

  Weight (kg)

  Bristol Airport

  1

  Cardiff Airport

  13

  Coventry Sorting Office

  238

  Dover

  2,184

  Edinburgh Airport

  13

  Felixstowe

  24,329

  Gatwick Airport

  18,461

  Glasgow Airport

  15

  Heathrow Airport

  12,534

  London City Airport

  1,106

  Luton Airport

  207

  Manchester Airport

  276

  Mersey Port

  14

  Mount Pleasant Sorting Office

  155

  Newcastle Airport

  21

  Southampton

  48,777

  Stansted Airport

  65

  Teesport

  1,689

  Teesside Airport

  15

  Thamesport

  3,625

  Waterloo International

  3

  From March 2002 to date

  Aberdeen

  117

  Belfast City Airport

  1,061

  Belfast International

  327

  Birmingham Airport

  802

  Bristol Airport

  41

  Coventry Sorting Office

  69

  Dover

  1,642

  Edinburgh Airport

  482

  Felixstowe

  9,173

  Gatwick Airport

  6,828

  Grangemouth

  10

  Heathrow Airport

  13,365

  Leeds/Bradford Airport

  118

  Liverpool Airport

  241

  London City Airport

  1,551

  Luton Airport

  27

  Manchester Airport

  441

  Mersey Port

  34

  Mount Pleasant Sorting Office

  22

  Newcastle Airport

  14

  Norwich Airport

  1

  Portsmouth

  1,338

  Rosyth

  7

  Southampton Port

  259

  Stansted Airport

  128

  Teesport

  106

  Teesside Airport

  1

  Thamesport

  32

  Waterloo International

  6

  Import Controls
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) airports and (b) seaports there are, broken down by region at which her Department has responsibility for import controls. [86576]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: Responsibility for setting policy on import controls at all airports and seaports for animals and plants and their products, and live fish from non-EU countries, lies with Defra and the devolved administrations.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the House on 6 November, responsibility for anti-smuggling controls is to transfer to Her
  690W
  Majesty's Customs and Excise, as soon as is practicable. Currently the responsibilities for execution and enforcement of import controls are as set out below.

  The State Veterinary Service, part of Defra, is responsible for executing checks and enforcement of the rules at border inspection posts (BIPs) through which only those products referred to in Annex I of Council Directive 92/118/EEC which are not intended for human consumption; or live animals are introduced into the UK. There are 16 BIPs approved for this purpose—five airports and six seaports in England, and two airports and three seaports in Scotland.

  Each local authority is responsible for executing the import checks rules within its area for products of animal origin other than those products mentioned above. These are carried out at approved BIPs as set out below:

  England

  18 ports

  5 airports

  Wales

  1 port

  Scotland

  4 ports

  1 airport

  Northern Ireland

  1 port

  1 airport

  Local authorities are also responsible for enforcing the import rules in their areas, whether they include BIPs or not.

  Responsibility for checks to protect plant health of imported plants and plant produce lies with Defra's Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate at all airports and seaports in England and Wales.

  Insecticides
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulations prevent gardeners from manufacturing home-made insecticides for use in their own gardens; and if she will make a statement. [86487]

  Mr. Morley
  All pesticides used in this country, including those used in domestic gardens, must first be approved by Ministers. Approval is then only granted provided thorough scientific evaluation shows that they can be used safely.

  I am, however, aware that there are some gardeners who like to use home garden remedies to protect their plants. The Department does not however condone the promotion of such use either by individuals, organisations or the media.

  Landfill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) number and (b) total size is of planned landfill sites in the United Kingdom; and when each is expected to begin operations, broken down by region. [85893]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: 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 across the United Kingdom by around two-thirds in line with the

  691W
  timetable set out in the directive (i.e. 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.

  Information on the number of planned landfill sites is not available centrally.14 November 2002

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the viability of enforcing greater use of(a) biodegradable plastic bottles and (b) plastic bottles which can be crushed down once empty. [86022]

  Mr. Meacher
  Substitutes for plastic made from potato starch have been developed and are being used for some types of packaging by some retailers. Such material is entirely biodegradable and can be composted.

  A number of companies are marketing degradable plastics technology and products manufactured from these materials. These new materials are based on modified plastics manufactured from mineral oil and still have to be sent for recycling after use. We do strongly support the development of biodegradable plastics made from non-fossil sources, providing these will actually be composted and not sent to landfill.

  Plastic bottles which can be crushed down once empty are useful, particularly in terms of saving space in household bins. We are looking at ways to encourage this.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what speeches(a) she and (b) Departmental ministerial colleagues have made since 23rd July to external organisations, stating in each case whether the speech is publicly available; and if she will place in the Library copies of those speeches not hitherto publicly available. [82852]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: All Defra Ministers make a number of speeches every week and so it would only be at disproportionate cost that a fully comprehensive list could be assembled. However a list has previously been placed in the library of the House which shows the principal keynote speeches made by DEFRA Ministers from 7 June 2001 to 1 June 2002. Some of these are available on the DEFRA website (as are other, more minor speeches) and, where possible, the others are available upon request although generally not in an 'as delivered' format.

  Secretary of State

  Date

  Speech

  12 September 2002

  European Parliament Temporary Committee

  17 September 2002

  Launch of the Plant Atlas

  18 September 2002

  Environmental Services Association third Environmental Conference

  20 September 2002

  Ribble Valley Millennium Link

  21 October 2002

  Meat and Livestock Commission Dinner, SIAL

  23 October 2002

  2002 Silver Lapwing Award

  24 October 2002

  Launch of England Biodiversity Strategy

  6 November 2002

  Foreign Policy CentreCAP reform

  692W

  Secretary of State

  Date

  Speech

  14 November 2002

  Combined Heat and Power Association National Conference

  19 November 2002

  Darwin Initiative Phase II Launch

  20 November 2002

  Speech to Parliament Press Gallery

  25 November 2002

  Outcome of Johannesburg Summit

  26 November 2002

  Warm Homes Week

  Michael Meacher

  Date

  Speech

  17 September 2002

  UCL Conference

  19 September 2002

  Water UK

  25 September 2002

  Defra Conference

  26 September 2002

  ENVEC (recorded)

  10 October 2002

  European Environment Bureau

  14 October 2002

  Soil Association Conference

  18 October 2002

  Nuclear Free Local Authorities Conference

  4 November 2002

  RIIA Seminar

  5 November 2002

  LARAC Conference

  6 November 2002

  DEMOS Seminar

  14 November 2002

  Defra Conference

  15 November 2002

  Country Land and Business Association Conference

  20 November 2002

  Magistrates Association Conference

  Elliot Morley

  Date

  Speech

  2 September 2002

  Wildlife Trust Conference

  18 September 2002

  Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers Dairy Show

  19 September 2002

  Timber Trade Federation Annual Conference

  11 October 2002

  Open Wash Banks Flood Alleviation

  16 October 2002

  Economist Water Conference

  17 October 2002

  Launch of CAWC Report

  24 October 2002

  Cold Water Prawn Forum

  28 October 2002

  National Flood Forum

  4 November 2002

  Abbots Hall Farm

  6 November 2002

  Launch of Pets for North America

  Lord Whitty

  Date

  Speech

  31 July 2002

  Sheep 2002

  2 September 2002

  Dorset Chamber of Commerce

  12 September 2002

  Learning to last Conference by Learning Skills and Development Agency

  19 September 2002

  Congress of European Agriculture

  21 October 2002

  TGWU Food and Agriculture Conference

  25 October 2002

  Food From Britain Reception

  29 October 2002

  Association of Parliamentary Food and Health Forum Conference

  30 October 2002

  David Black Awards

  31 October 2002

  Women's Food and Farming Union

  31 October 2002

  Meat and Livestock Commission Catering Sector Conference

  12 November 2002

  National Food Assurance Conference

  Alun Michael

  Date

  Speech

  23 July 2002

  Countryside Agency Launch

  24 July 2002

  Sustainable Development evening

  25 July 2002

  Launch of Defra-led Magic Project

  26 July 2002

  Shooting Seminar CLA Game Fair

  5 September 2002

  National Conference on Rural Stress

  12 September 2002

  Launch of the National Training Strategy for Town and Parish Councils

  18 September 2002

  Association of National Park Authorities' Annual Conference

  30 October 2002

  Climbing Mountains

  31 October 2002

  Urban Summit-Rural Urban Linkages

  5 November 2002

  National Village Halls Forum AGM

  693W

  Alun Michael

  Date

  Speech

  6 November 2002

  British Horse Society Awards

  8 November 2002

  Visit to Groundwork Project

  8 November 2002

  Fourth Rural Affairs Forum

  9 November 2002

  Rural Affairs Conference

  12 November 2002

  Second National Angling Summit

  15 November 2002

  Launch of the Institute of Air Quality Management

  Recycling (Agricultural Waste)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what basis she provides funding to assist a business in England proposing to recycle agricultural film waste; and what account she will take of recycling facilities in Scotland when reaching such a decision. [87219]

  Mr. Meacher
  We do not provide funding specifically for the development of schemes to recycle agricultural film waste. The Rural Development Service may consider funding under ERDP for a particular scheme on the basis of an application put to them. All relevant factors would be taken into account in considering any application that is made, including recycling facilities in Scotland.

  Animal Welfare (Sows)
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Department has made of the effect on expectant and nursing sows of being kept in farrowing crates; and whether the Government plans to ban the use of farrowing crates. [86583]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: We have, for a number of years, funded research directly or indirectly related to the welfare of the sow and her piglets, from farrowing to weaning. Part of this research has been directed towards determining which aspects of confinement in farrowing crates could, potentially, cause frustration in pregnant and lactating sows. A key issue emerging is that changes in farrowing systems to improve sow welfare can frequently have an adverse effect on the welfare of the piglets. As a result, we are not yet able unreservedly to recommend free-farrowing systems for widespread commercial adoption.

  Our research, and that of others, continues, Our aim is to reach a position where it is possible to avoid the close confinement of all sows.

  Sustainable Energy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Department of Trade and Industry on promoting sustainable energy sources; and if she will make a statement. [87133]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in regular contact with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on a wide range of matters that affect the business of both their Departments. Sustainable energy sources are amongthe issues that have been discussed at those meetings.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are in place to ensure that medication cannot be administered in the UK's waters supplies. [86306]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  Regulations 25–28 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (as amended) require water undertakers to only use substances and products in the treatment and supply of drinking water which have been approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She is advised by the Committee on Products and Processes for Use in Public Water Supply, which is an advisory non-departmental public body.

TRANSPORT

  West Coast Main Line
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to improve rail links to the west of Scotland. [85912]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The west coast upgrade will increase the frequency of InterCity services to Glasgow from September 2004 and reduce journey times.

  Bus Services
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent changes have(a) recently taken place and (b) are planned to bus subsidies provided by his Department. [85913]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have recently extended Bus Service Operators Grant (formerly called fuel duty rebate) to many community transport services and introduced a 100 per cent. fuel duty rebate on biodiesel. We are considering ways of applying this grant to scheduled coach services in 2003–04 in return for half-fare concessions for older and disabled passengers. Our Bus Subsidy Review is considering whether any further changes to subsidy mechanisms will help to achieve our policy objectives for bus services, which include increasing patronage, modal shift and promoting social inclusion.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached on the future use of fuel duty rebate to support public bus services. [85914]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our Bus Subsidy Review is currently considering whether any changes to fuel duty rebate will help to achieve our policy objectives for bus services, which include increasing patronage, modal shift and promoting social inclusion. The review will report its conclusions to Ministers by February 2003.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he will be giving to the report of the Commission for Integrated Transport on Public Subsidy for the Bus Industry. [85920]
  695W
  Mr. Jamieson
  We welcome the report of the Commission for Integrated Transport on Public Subsidy for the Bus Industry. We will consider our response as part of my Department's Review of Bus Subsidies.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people used buses in England in the last year for which figures are available. [85922]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In 2001, according to data from the National Travel Survey, 58 per cent. of household residents in England used local buses at least once a year and 27 per cent. used them at least once a week.

  Bus passenger journeys in England increased by one per cent. in 2001–02 compared to 2000–01, with £3.8 billion journeys in all.

  Rail Services (Wales)
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority regarding the Wales rail franchise, and in particular the service on the Cambrian coast line. [85915]

  Mr. Spellar
  I, and other departmental Ministers, meet the chair and chief executive of the Strategic Rail Authority on a regular basis; and discuss a range of issues.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) to discuss rail services(a) to and (b) within Wales. [85919]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I, and other departmental Ministers, meet the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Strategic Rail Authority on a regular basis and discuss a range of issues.

  Capital Investment
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on projected future levels of capital investment under the(a) Department for Transport and (b) Strategic Rail Authority 10-year plans for (i) railways, (ii) roads, (iii) multimodal studies and (iv) local transport. [85916]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is today publishing a progress report on the 10-year investment plan. As well as describing the considerable progress that has been made during the first 18 months of the 10-year plan, this will also set out our plans for investment in all transport modes for the remainder of the decade.

  Airport Development
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact on Sutton Coldfield of the proposed airport expansion at(a) Birmingham airport and (b) Rugby. [85917]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The potential impacts of Midlands' airport development options have been assessed against a range of local and national indicators, including economic benefits and environmental costs.
  696W
  In general terms, development at Birmingham airport may result in increased aircraft noise for Sutton Coldfield, but could also generate additional jobs. The Rugby option assumes the closure of Birmingham, so the converse is likely to be true.

  Cliffe Airport
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to consult residents in southern Essex in relation to the proposals to build a new airport at Cliffe. [85921]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced to Parliament on 28 November 2002 that the consultation on airports capacity will be extended until we have consulted on proposals in respect of Gatwick. My right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear to the House that it is open for anyone in the country to respond to the consultation.

  Those who have already responded to the consultation will be able to amend, add to, or replace their response having considered the new document. We will set out our plans for the remaining stage of the consultation process, including how to inform respondents, when we publish the further consultation paper in the new year.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 2002 (ref 86522) if he will explain his plans for the consultation process in the new year to the public meeting on Canvey Island. [87286]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: As I set out in my previous answer to the hon. Member on 9 December 2002, Official Report, columns 29–30W, we will set out our plans for the remaining stage of the consultation process when we publish the further consultation in the new year.

  Air Safety and Security
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on plans to improve safety(a) at airports and (b) on board aircraft. [85923]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government, the Civil Aviation Authority and the aviation industry as a whole work together at all times to maintain the present high safety and security standards at UK airports and on board aircraft using our airports. These standards are monitored and further improvements made wherever appropriate.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve security checks on aircraft crews; and if he will make a statement. [87503]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under arrangements being brought in next year, UK aircrew will be subject to five-year reference and criminal record checking. We have already ordered that a study be carried out into the benefits to security of conducting additional checks on crews, balanced against the practicalities of undertaking them. This study will be completed early in the New Year.

  Railway Stations
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the upgrading of railway stations following Railtrack's entering receivership. [85924]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack's arrangements for upgrading railway stations relate to like for like replacements. These have not been affected by Railtrack being taken into administration. The Strategic Rail Authority operate several schemes with other partners to improve the quality and facilities at stations.

  Regional Transport Strategies
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps is he taking to ensure that transport strategies support regional economic regeneration. [85925]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our national planning policy guidance on regional planning clearly states that Regional Transport Strategies, produced as part of Regional Planning Guidance, should inform and support the Regional Economic Strategies being developed by Regional Development Agencies.

  My Department is committed to working closely with RDAs, in conjunction with Regional Planning Bodies, in the development of these strategies and in identifying transport improvements that will support economic regeneration in all regions. Last week, for instance, we announced a major package of improvements to tackle congestion on the country's strategic highway network, helping to support business competitiveness.

  M6\M56
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the Government's decision on the options for improving the link between the M6 and the M56. [85927]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of States response to the West Midlands to North West Multi Modal Study recently instructed the Highways Agency to provide further advice on alternative options for improving connections between the M6 and the M56. That advice is expected early in 2003, following which he will consider his decision.

  Transport Costs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for his transport policy of the relative changes in the cost of travelling by(a) car, (b) rail and (c) bus since 1997. [85928]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Development of policies in the 10-year plan has been informed by extensive modelling using the National Transport Model and its forebears. This modelling takes account of the best data we have on how demand for different transport modes varies with respect to the overall cost of using those modes.

  Airports (Transport Links)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his assessment is of the priorities for improvements in public transport to airports in the south-east of England. [85929]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are committed to improving access to airports by public transport. This is a key component in the ongoing consultation on "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom". Comments received will be considered carefully before final decisions are taken on the policies for the air transport White Paper, to be published next year.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his strategy to reduce the number of deaths on the road. [85931]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are fully committed to meeting or beating its casualty reduction targets for 2010 as set out in "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone". Total deaths and serious injuries in 2001 were 15 per cent. down from the baseline for the 40 per cent. target reduction. Child deaths and serious injuries in 2001 were 27 per cent. down from their baseline—and thus over halfway towards their 50 per cent. target reduction.

  Aviation Industry (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the work his Department is undertaking to reduce the environmental impact of the aviation industry. [85932]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport on behalf of the United Kingdom is a leading participant in international bodies dealing with the environmental impact of the aviation industry, including the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

  For example, the phase-out of most 'Chapter 2' jet aircraft, completed in March 2002, has produced significant reductions in noise around mature airports. The UK has been and remains at the forefront of states pressing for stringent certification rules for both noise and atmospheric emissions.

  Trunk Roads
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the state of trunk roads. [85933]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I regularly receive representations from a wide range of organisations and individuals on the state of trunk and local roads.

  Manchester Metrolink
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the next phase of the Manchester tram system to be open. [85934]
  699W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend announced his confirmation of funding approval for the third phase of Manchester Metrolink on 10 December. It is expected to be fully operational by 2010.

  Norwich\Liverpool Street Rail Line
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the capacity of the Norwich to Liverpool street rail line. [85935]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On 6 November the Strategic Rail Authority confirmed their intention to create a new "Greater Anglia" franchise, combining the services of the three current operators into Liverpool street. Provision of capacity into London Liverpool street will be a key issue for the new franchise to address.

  Road Improvements (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will include the provision of a bypass on the A614 for the village of Middleton-on-the-Wolds in the further studies on road improvements in Yorkshire, announced on 10 December 2002. [87383]

  Mr. Spellar
  Any proposal for a bypass for the village of Middleton-on-the-Wolds would be for the local highway authority, to promote through its Local Transport Plan. The proposal would then be considered on its merits.

  Fatal Accidents (School Children)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the Environment Secretary in the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the implications of the recent fatal accidents involving school children travelling home from school on a scheduled bus service. [87384]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It would be inappropriate to meet the Environmental Secretary in the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the implications of the fatal accident near Cowbridge on 3 December 2002 in the immediate future, while there is an on-going Police investigation into it. I am not aware of there having been any other recent fatal accidents involving school children on scheduled bus services.

  General Lighthouse Authorities
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the(a) role, (b) terms of reference and (c) annual budget of (i) the Trinity House Lighthouse Authority and (ii) The Commission for Irish Lights in each year since 1997. [87597]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The role and terms of reference of the General Lighthouse Authorities (GLA) are set out in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 as amended. This requires them to provide marine aids to general navigation in their respective areas, adjacent seas and islands. The Trinity House Lighthouse Service is the GLA for England, Wales and the Channel Islands and Gibraltar. The Commissioners for Irish Lights is the GLA for Northern Ireland. Under the Republic of Ireland Merchant Shipping Act 1894 as amended, CIL is also the GLA for the Republic. The GLAs deliver services in accordance with international standards agreed by the 700W
  International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities. All three GLAs submit annual Corporate Plans for approval by the Secretary of State.

  The annual budget spend from 1997\98 to 2002\03 is set out in the table.

  £000

  Trinity House Lighthouse Service

  Commissioners of Irish Lights

  1997–98

  29,187

  13,775

  1998–99

  29,362

  13,401

  1999–2000

  28,587

  13,701

  2000–01

  30,364

  15,077

  2001–02

  30,203

  16,168

  2002–03

  31,998

  16,034

  M25
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the full report on the assessment by the Transport Research Laboratory of the controlled motorway project on the M25. [87268]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A full report on the assessment of the controlled motorway project on the M25 is expected to be placed in the Library in late autumn 2003.

  Rail Services (Northern England)
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to improve the rail services between Liverpool and Manchester serving parts of the Wigan borough; [87245]

  (2) when he expects the Strategic Rail Authority to publish the structure of the franchise to run rail services in the north of England. [87242]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Wigan is currently served by the First North Western franchise. The SRA is planning to combine services currently operated by First North Western and Arriva Trains Northern to form new Transpennine Express (TPE) and Northern franchises. TPE will run inter-city services across the north, including between Liverpool and Manchester. Northern will operate rural and urban services. The SRA expects to issue documentation about the structure of the Northern franchise early in 2003.

  Information about the franchise replacement programme and the composition of franchises can be found on the Strategic Rail Authority's website at www.sra.gov.uk

  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation he plans to have with hon. Members on the structure of the new franchise for services and stations in the north of England. [87640]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is primarily for the Strategic Rail Authority to determine the structure of franchises. As a matter of course, the Authority consults during the replacement process—including with local authorities, Passenger Transport Executives, RegionalAssemblies and the Rail Passengers Committees.
  701W

  Railways (Arson)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidences of arson on the railways there were in each year since 1995, broken down by(a) train operating company and (b) line. [87629]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive's Annual Report on the safety record of the railways in Great Britain contains details of arson on the railways. Copies are available from the House Libraries. The 2001–02 report will be published on 18 December 2002.

  The HSE is unable to provide information on the train operating company and line involved in arson incidences, as these details are not recorded as part of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1995 (RIDDOR).

  Road Transport
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in implementing the Government's 10-year transport plan in respect of road transport. [85918]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State is today publishing a progress report that sets out the progress that has been made with road transport. A copy of the report will be placed in the House Library.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Rendel
  If he will make a statement on the role of his Department in tackling the backlog of road maintenance on the road network. [85926]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no backlog in maintenance on the motorway and trunk road network.

  The Government are committed to halting the deterioration in local road condition by 2004, and to eliminating the backlogs in carriageway, footway, bridge and street lighting maintenance by 2010. Over £30 billion for local road maintenance is being provided over the timescale of the 10 Year Transport Plan, 23 per cent. more in real terms than the previous 10 years.

  Maritime Control Agency
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the seagoing qualifications and experience, including period in command of vessels on international voyages, of each individual named on the job structure accompanying the Maritime Control Agency's Business Plan 2002–03 and Forward Look. [87566]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It would be inappropriate to list individual civil servants and their qualifications. However, of the individuals named on the organisational chart accompanying the MCA Business Plan 2002–03, there are:

  six who hold a Master Mariners Certificate and have served on ships trading internationally;

  five who have a degree in Naval Architecture;

  eight who are Qualified Marine Engineers; and

  two who served in the Royal Navy.

  702W
  Between them they have approximately 150 years of seagoing experience.

  Tramways
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the requirements placed on potential operators of light tramway systems in obtaining a licence to operate on little-used railway branch lines with special reference to the Stourbridge to Stourbridge Junction line. [87307]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Where a light rail or tram scheme is proposed which would need to share track access with the heavy rail network, it will need to satisfy the requirements of relevant railway group standards (save in the case of the Great Central Railway). Where the line is no longer used for heavy rail, however, HMRI would be the sole approval body as with other tramway schemes.

  I understand that it is proposed that the Parry People Mover will operate on shared track between Stourbridge junction and Stourbridge town centre. For this to be permissible it would need to meet Railway Group standards.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with train operating companies on additional funding for British Transport Police since 11 September 2001. [87101]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: There have been no discussions between the Secretary of State for Transport and the train operating companies, but the Secretary of State has discussed policing matters with the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many uniformed officers are deployed to police the London Underground system. [87102]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The deployment of the British Transport Police (BTP) is an operational matter for the Chief Constable. The BTP have advised me that they have budgeted for a total of 471 officers within their London Underground area, and that 413 of these are allocated to uniformed duties. 383 uniformed officers are currently deployed to police the London Underground.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  HIV\AIDS
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress she has made with HIV\AIDS education within African school curriculum projects supported by her Department. [87170]

  Clare Short
  DFID is working with development partners to ensure that HIV is mainstreamed throughout education systems, plans and interventions in all African countries where we are providing education support. This includes working directly with
  703W
  Ministries of Education to ensure that school curricula address HIV and AIDS in a manner that is gender-sensitive and relevant to students.

  We are also making progress by piloting targeted school-based HIV prevention programmes—the Nigeria Extended Life Planning Education Project is one such initiative.

  DFID is also supporting innovative programmes in Southern Africa, using multiple media such as radio drama, pamphlets and cartoon books to communicate about HIV prevention. We are supporting Soul City on a regional initiative to provide materials on HIV\AIDS to all 12 to 16-year-olds in Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland.

  Republic of the Congo
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds the Government of the Republic of Congo has made available for(a) prevention and (b) treatment of HIV\AIDS. [87169]

  Clare Short
  We have no current information on the level of funding being made available by the Government for the prevention and treatment of HIV\AIDS.

  Extractive Industries Transparency initiative
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many meetings she has had with (a) companies, (b) governments and (c) new governmental organisations regarding the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative since the World Summit on Sustainable Development. [87212]

  Clare Short
  The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative team hosted the first UK stakeholders' meeting on 26 November. Forty participants attended with approximately equal representation from extractive companies, investors, international agencies, NGOs and other UK Government departments.
  Many other bilateral meetings have taken place with other Government officials, companies and NGOs to raise awareness of the initiative. In addition, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative was presented at the launch workshop of the World bank's research into the Governance of Natural Resources, held in Paris, 9–10 December.

  An international meeting will take place on 11–12 February to draw in wider, international support for the initiative and to discuss the substance of mechanisms to make transparency a reality. This will be followed by a ministerial-level conference in April 2003.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) of 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 530W, if she will list the principles underpinning the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. [87221]
  704W
  Clare Short
  The draft principles adopted by the stakeholders meeting which we hosted on 26 November are as follows:We recognise that revenues from natural resources should be an important engine for economic growth, social development and poverty eradication, but, if not managed properly, can create negative economic and social impacts.
  We recognise that the benefits of resource extraction occur as revenue streams over many years and that, although highly price dependent, a public understanding of current and future revenue streams would help inform the choice of appropriate and realistic development options.
  We support the principle and practice of accountability for the stewardship of revenue streams—from their receipt to their eventual end use.
  We are committed to honest, legal and transparent behaviour.
  We support the principle and practise of financial transparency--as a necessary condition for good governance.
  We believe that a comprehensive, consistent and workable approach to the disclosure of payments and revenues is required.
  In seeking solutions, we believe that all stakeholders have important and relevant contributions to make—including host and home governments, multilateral organisations, regulatory agencies, financial and lending organisations, nongovernmental organisations and industry.
  We commit to develop effective mechanisms to achieve transparency of payments and revenues in the extractive industries. This will entail disclosure by oil, gas and mining companies of tax and non-tax payments to host country governments and government-linked entities, and transparency by governments over revenues from this sector. We encourage other Governments, national and multinational extractive companies and other interested parties to join us to develop effective and lasting solutions.

  Burundi
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department has taken to support the Transitional Government of Burundi since November 2001. [87148]

  Clare Short
  We are supporting the full implementation of the Arusha agreement on Burundi and the Transitional National Government, including through financial support for the peace facilitation process and for the costs of the South African security deployment in Burundi. We continue to work energetically in the international community including at the recent Donors Round Table Conference in Geneva to carry forward the Arusha agreement. We are playing an active role in encouraging international financial institutions to re-engage in Burundi, and are increasing our development assistance—including a $1 million contribution to the Burundi Multidonor Debt Trust Fund. We have posted a full-time DFID representative to Bujumbura to facilitate this increased activity.

  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department will be taking to support the recent peace agreement between the Transitional Government of Burundi and rebel group the FDD and to encourage peace talks between the Transitional Government of Burundi and rebel group the FNL. [87149]
  705W
  Clare Short
  We are actively engaged with our international partners in considering how we should respond to the proposed African Mission to support the Dares Salaam ceasefire agreement with the FDD. We are also in discussion with the Transitional National Government on their security sector reform needs to support the agreement. We are working closely with the FCO and international partners to help the facilitation efforts of the South Africans, Tanzanians, Ugandans and Gabonese to continue efforts to get the FNL to sign the ceasefire.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what correspondence she has had with the Government of Burundi regarding alleged human rights violations against children held in detention centres; and if she will make a statement. [87171]

  Clare Short
  I have not had any correspondence with the Government of Burundi on this issue. According to the latest statistics published by UNICEF and Libejeun (a local NGO) there are currently 199 children in Burundian prisons.

  Conditions appear to be well below international minimum standards. However, considerable improvements have been noted by Amnesty International and the ICRC over the last two to three years in prisons where ICRC have been paying monitoring visits and installing water and sanitation equipment. We are providing financial support to the ICRC programmes in Burundi and elsewhere in the Great Lakes. Our embassy continues to monitor the situation.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the Final Report of the UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [87050]

  Clare Short
  We broadly welcome the final report of the UN Panel of Experts, which contains some important recommendations aimed at ensuring that the Democratic Republic of Congo's natural resources are used for the benefit of all its people. However we believe that it contains significant inaccuracies and some allegations on which there is no evidence. We and other members of the Security Council have asked for further information from the panel on the claims contained within it. The panel's mandate expired when it submitted its final report, and there is currently no mechanism or process in place to take forward their work. We are working on a draft Security Council Resolution to resolve this administrative problem.

  Sexual and Reproductive Health
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's budget was spent on(a) reproductive health and (b) HIV\AIDS in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 arid (iii) 2001–02. [87052]

  Clare Short
  Figures for HIV\AIDS related activities which includes reproductive health activities, for the last three financial years are set out in the table.
  706W

  HIV\AIDS activities as percentage of DFID bilateral programme

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  HIV\AIDS related expenditure

  75.7

  124.9

  206.6

  Annual bilateral programme

  1,323.9

  1,414.8

  1,506.2

  Percentage of total programme

  6%

  9%

  14%

  The above data combine projects that have been marked against the Reproductive Health Services and HIV\AIDS policy markers. Increasingly, DFID is helping to tackle HIV\AIDS within the context of large sexual and reproductive health programmes and sustainable health systems development. In these circumstances, it is often difficult to attribute spend to particular aspects of sexual and reproductive health. For example, provision of condoms serves the dual purposes of HIV\AIDS prevention and protection against other sexually transmitted infections as well as family planning. We strongly believe that a cross-sectoral approach to tackling HIV\AIDS is essential if we are to be successful. The International Development Committee share this view. This does, however, pose problems of attribution.

  Education
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contributions to the Education for All action plan she expects to make in the next five years. [87431]

  Clare Short
  Our forecast support for basic education amounts to £1.3 billion over the next live years, either through education sector support or direct budget support. Of this, about £500 million will go to Africa and £800 million to Asia. A substantial proportion will go to low income countries included within the Fast Track Initiative, notably to the five high population countries with large numbers of children out of school (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, DRC) which the Government successfully pressed to have included in the initiative. These spending figures are forecasts, not targets or commitments, and depend on agreeing high quality programmes with our partners.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Spellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the total volume of food aid(a) her Department and (b) the EU has delivered to Ethiopia in 2002; and on what dates that food arrived in Ethiopia. [87476]

  Clare Short
  My Department has provided 4,887 Mts of food aid through the World Food Programme and 6,400 Mts through Save the Children (UK) in 2002. In both cases, food was drawn down from the Emergency Food Security Reserve (EFSR) and distributed immediately following our commitment. Both organisations subsequently purchased food locally. WFP paid back into the EFSR in September and SC(UK) will complete repayment this week.

  We understand that the EU has so far provided 99,800 Mts of food aid in 2002. Of the 99,800 Mts, 22,800 Mts was delivered through the World Food Programme. We are told that it is difficult to produce actual delivery dates as the 99,800 Mts was purchased

  707W
  locally. A further 22,800 Mts will be delivered by the end of December. DFID contributes almost 20 per cent. of the cost of EU assistance.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what volume of food(a) her Department and (b) the EU has pledged to Ethiopia for 2003; and when she expects these food deliveries to arrive in Ethiopia. [87477]

  Clare Short
  In addition to the 11,287 Mts of food aid we provided in 2002, we have just approved the provision of 2,577 Mts of supplementary food aid through CARE International for 2003 for 286,300 vulnerable people in East and West Hararghe zones. It is expected that this will be delivered in the first two months of 2003. We are keeping the situation in Ethiopia under continuous review and are considering the provision of further food aid for 2003.

  On 9 December, in response to the December Emergency Appeal, the European Union announced the provision of 260,000 Mts of food aid for Ethiopia in 2003. We understand that they expect that this will be delivered in March-April 2003. DFID contributes almost 20 per cent. of the cost of EU assistance.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the level of Ethiopia's food deficits for the first quarter of 2003. [87478]

  Clare Short
  In the Joint UN/Government of Ethiopia Appeal, which was launched on 7 December, it was indicated that the food needs for Ethiopia in the first quarter of 2003 would be 410,809 MT.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was discussed at the meeting of the EU's General Affairs and External Relations Council on 9 and 10 December regarding Ethiopia. [87479]

  Clare Short
  Ethiopia was not discussed at the GAERC on 9–10 December despite it being on the agenda. However, in response to the Government of Ethiopia/UN Appeal on 9 December the Commission announced a new emergency food aid programme worth £70 million, which is equivalent to 260,000 metric tonnes of cereals.

  Gambia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on recent levels of malnutrition among children in Gambia. [87172]

  Clare Short
  The most recent figures for levels of malnutrition in The Gambia that we are aware of, come from a nutritional survey carried out in October 2002 by the World Food Programme (WFP), in collaboration with other agencies, in 29 villages. This found levels of acute malnutrition among children surveyed to be 11.2 per cent. Children in the age group between 12 and 23 months were found to be worst affected.

  Landmines (Angola)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what impact she estimates landmines are having on humanitarian efforts in the Mavinga region of Angola. [85878]

  Clare Short
  On 2 December, a vehicle belonging to Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF) working on an emergency relief project in the southeastern region of Mavinga, funded in part by DFID, was blown up by a mine resulting in the deaths of 7 people, and the wounding of 6 others. As a result of this tragic incident, MSF have stated their intention to reduce their humanitarian activities in the area—one of the worst affected in Angola. Relief agencies in Angola state that landmines continue to restrict the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

  According to the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Human Affairs (OCHA), Angola is one of the most heavily mined countries in the world. As many as 70,000 Angolans are believed to have lost limbs as a result of landmine explosions. 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 per cent. 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.

  Nigeria
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the fairness of political party registration in Nigeria; and what impact the registration of political parties in Nigeria has made on the country's transition to democracy. [87173]

  Clare Short
  The Supreme Court ruling of 21 November 2002 upheld the Independent National Electoral Commission's (INEC) right to set guidelines for the registration of political parties, but held that these guidelines could not impose requirements in excess of those set out in the constitution. As a result, 22 new political parties have now been registered, bringing the total to 28. Though the initial ruling by INEC was exclusive, the court system was used to good effect by the excluded parties to ensure a much broader participation. Thus, while the courts ruled that INEC was not 'fair' to have excluded parties in the first place, the system as a whole can be judged to have been fair.

  The registration of the additional parties will cause administrative difficulties, but it could have a beneficial impact, allowing more people to become involved in politics, and could increase the likelihood that parties will form on issue-based platforms. However the full impact of the registration of 22 new parties is yet to be felt. My Department is working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to monitor developments.

  Primary Education
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which countries increased
  709W
  funding for primary education over the next five years will be spent and how; and how much of this will be spent in World bank Fast Track countries. [87569]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie on 18 November 2002,Official Report, columns 15–16W).

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list for her Department(a) those Comprehensive Spending Review 1998 targets that were outstanding at the time of the statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review 2002, (b) progress on such targets since then and (c) the expected date when targets not yet achieved will he met. [87698]
  710W
  Clare Short
  My department publishes progress against all our outstanding Public Service Agreement targets in our Departmental Report (published in April 2002) and our Autumn Performance Report (published in October 2002). These are available at www.dfid.gov.uk.

  Sub-Saharan Africa (Health Care)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money was spent on healthcare services per person last year in sub-Saharan Africa. [87088]

  Clare Short
  Latest figures available in the World Bank's publication "World Development Indicators 2002, Table 2.15 Health expenditure, services and use" shows $41 of health expenditure per capita in Sub Saharan Africa. This includes public and private health expenditure, plus for some countries, external sources (mainly foreign assistance).
  711W

DEFENCE

  Ambulances
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ambulances are available to each armed service; and how many of these are air conditioned. [87685]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Army and the Royal Marines have 768 battlefield ambulances (BFA) and 68 armoured ambulances. At present, all the armoured ambulances, and 43 of the BFA are fitted with air conditioning units (ACU). Units are also able to convert the FV 432 and BV 206 vehicles for use as ambulances as and when appropriate. These are not air conditioned.

  The RAF has 28 BFA and 55 trauma management vehicles for crash rescue on airfields. These are not air conditioned.

  In addition to ambulances, the Ministry of Defence has 109 coaches with an ambulance role, which are not air conditioned.

  Ammunition
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what types and tonnage of ammunitions were brought into the United Kingdom by his Department in the last 12 months. [86564]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the past 12 months, the following types of ammunition have been brought into the United Kingdom as a result of overseas procurement:
  7.62 mm BALL, 21 mm Rocket System, 21 mm Training System, 0.5 4B/IT, 338 inch (various), 12.7 mm IMP, 5.56 mm AP, 9 mm (various), 66 mm, Goalkeeper FMPDS, 14.5 mm Artillery Training L21A1 (Charge), 40 mm Grenades (various), Enhanced Performance Grenade, 60 mm Mortar Bombs.

  I am withholding information regarding the tonnage of ammunition brought into the United Kingdom in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Cyprus (Christmas Mail)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what delays he expects to occur with the forces' Christmas mail to Episcopi in Cyprus. [87637]

  Dr. Moonie
  No delays are expected to any mail posted by the published "latest posting" dates, which were 6 December for parcels and 16 December for letters and packets.

  D-Day
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for UK involvement in celebrations to mark the 60th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy; and if he will make a statement. [87036]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 31 October 2002,Official Report, column 881W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).
  712W

  Dalton Barracks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2002,Official Report, column 36W, what the regular staff complement of officers and ranks at the Dalton Barracks in Oxfordshire is; how many deaths have been reported in and around the barracks since 1990; and what is the numerical breakdown of these deaths by cause. [86050]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are some 1,500 military personnel currently based at Dalton Barracks, Abingdon, with three Close Support Regiment and 4 General Support Regiment Royal Logistic Corps. Available records indicate that there have been four deaths at Abingdon since 1990. I am unable to release details of the cause of death in each case, as this may lead to the identification of individuals and compromise service personnel confidentiality. I am therefore withholding the information under Exemption 12 (Privacy of an Individual) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many inquiries have been received by the Defence Diversification Agency since its inception; how many of these were received through its Scottish office; how many led to a successful outcome; and if he will make a statement. [86386]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Diversification Agency, now in its fourth year of operation, has received some 2,653 inquiries, of which 198 were from Scotland. All inquiries were successfully processed with about 50 per cent. leading to follow-up technology/knowledge transfer.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Scottish firms have had negotiations with the Defence Diversification Agency in each year since its inception; and if he will make a statement. [86393]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Diversification Agency has had dealings with some 200 companies through its Scottish offices. The listing of these companies by date of inquiry, where we have such a record, is set out in the table.

  Company

  Inquiry date

  360pano Ltd.

  30 April 2002

  Accuscene Corporation Ltd.

  4 September 2002

  Acuid Corporation Ltd.

  7 June 2001

  Acuid Corporation Ltd.

  10 August 2001

  Adam Smith Ltd.

  —

  Ademco Michrotech Ltd.

  6 February 2001

  Advanced Biometric Systems Ltd.

  30 November 2001

  Alacom Dundee

  —

  Alcan

  10 January 2001

  Allenwest Wallacetown Ltd.

  23 August 2001

  Appledore Shipbuilders Ltd.

  —

  AROS Developments Ltd.

  30 May 2002

  Artifactus Ltd.

  23 January 2001

  Ascom IT Ltd.

  17 April 2001

  B.A. Aviation and Marine

  18 September 2001

  Babcock International BES Division

  30 July 2002

  BAE Systems

  —

  Biotrix International Ltd.

  1 November 1999

  Bitwise

  26 March 2002

  BMT Cordah Ltd.

  22 September 2002

  Bob Cameron

  1 August 2002

  Bonnybrae Ltd.

  26 September 2000

  713W

  Company

  Inquiry date

  Capt. Bruce Hitchings

  8 February 2001

  CCI Engineering Ltd.

  25 July 2002

  Central Science Laboratory

  8 January 2001

  Chilton International

  23 June 2000

  Clariant

  13 March 2002

  Cleenbore

  11 November 2002

  CoDrive Technologies Ltd.

  7 June 2001

  Collaborative Technology Ltd.

  18 July 2002

  Computer Training and Business Support

  24 November 2002

  Covus Engineering Steels, Aerospace and Energy Products

  26 October 2001

  CS Tendering Services Ltd.

  1 April 2002

  Cyberline International Ltd.

  1 March 2001

  David Burns

  25 February 2000

  De-Mining Systems UK Ltd.

  27 October 2000

  DenMac Medical International Ltd.

  22 October 2001

  Diagnostic Potentials

  30 April 2001

  Digital Animations Group plc.

  12 October 2002

  DNA Interactive Ltd.

  24 February 2000

  Donnie McDonald

  —

  Dovetail

  19 September 2000

  DSM Geodata

  1 October 2002

  Dynamic Knowledge Corporation

  11 December 2002

  ECom Scotland Ltd.

  17 October 2001

  Ectopharma Ltd.

  17 July 2001

  Edengene

  —

  Electronic Aromas Ltd.

  16 April 2002

  Electro-Mechanical Assembly Ltd.

  10 February 2001

  Electronic Arts

  —

  Enfocast Ltd.

  1 June 2001

  Engineering Services (Paisley) Ltd.

  10 February 2001

  Environmental Technology (Scotland) Ltd.

  27 August 1999

  Evolon

  7 August 2001

  Ezeeark Ltd.

  18 July 2001

  Ferranti Photonics Ltd.

  23 November 2001

  Fisher Powerware

  25 March 2002

  Footle

  18 October 2001

  Forth Ports plc

  18 April 2002

  Frankipile S. Africa

  —

  Free Aqua

  14 January 2002

  FreeForm Technology Ltd.

  31 May 2001

  Frio Cooling Products/GPN Thermoelectrics

  11 September 2000

  Fugro Structural Monitoring

  24 October 2002

  Futo Ltd.

  8 July 2002

  Fyne Diagnostics

  27 November 2001

  Gemini Corrosion Services Ltd.

  19 June 2001

  Gentech International

  —

  Glasgow Caledonian University

  29 October 2002

  Gorham and Partners Ltd.

  15 August 2001

  Greenhouse Ventures

  —

  Gulf Coast Seal (UK) Ltd.

  28 August 2000

  Harris Hynd Ltd.

  23 November 2000

  HCS Fluid Power Ltd.

  —

  Heriot-Watt University

  7 November 2001

  Hi Cad Technical Services

  4 February 2002

  I vision

  9 March 2002

  Ian Dean

  7 January 2002

  Iatros Ltd.

  13 April 2000

  IceRobotics Ltd.

  20 September 2001

  ICM Fortronics Ltd.

  9 January 2001

  Image Fusion Systems Ltd.

  16 October 2000

  Infinite Data Storage Ltd.

  9 November 2000

  Innovative Engineering Systems Ltd.

  31 August 2000

  Intelligent Earth

  —

  IRC Executive, Targeting Technology Ltd.

  3 May 2002

  John Rae

  —

  Johnstone Castings and Engineering Ltd.

  14 August 2002

  KOGG Caledonia

  13 February 2001

  Kongsberg Simrad

  23 August 2002

  KSMsuperclean

  11 November 2001

  Kvaener Oil and Gas

  20 March 2002

  LandRover/David McWha

  28 March 2000

  Laplace

  11 December 2002

  Leading Edge Advantage International Ltd.

  31 May 2001

  Link Scotland

  17 September 2002

  Linn Products Ltd.

  26 February 1999

  Lux Biotechnology Ltd.

  18 September 2002

  MacDuff Ship Design Ltd.

  —

  MacFarlane Packaging Ltd.

  1 December 2000

  MacGregor Traders and Consultants Ltd.

  1 December 2000

  MacTaggart Scott and Co. Ltd.

  8 October 2001

  Malcolm Stevenson

  15 September 2002

  Marketing Management Services International

  5 October 2002

  714W

  Company

  Inquiry date

  MB Aerospace Ltd.

  15 September 2002

  McCrindle Group Ltd.

  25 October 2002

  Meiklewall Ltd.

  7 December 2000

  Metron Technology

  —

  Milestone International Ltd.

  21 November 2000

  Miller Methil Ltd.

  —

  Mine Ordinance Ltd.

  —

  Mission Technology Ltd.

  22 August 2000

  MMC Marketing Consultants

  13 August 2002

  MoTech Software Private Ltd.

  —

  Motherwell Bridge Group

  15 August 2002

  Motorola

  26 April 2000

  Mr. Ian Robertson

  13 September 2001

  Murrell Dynamics Ltd.

  1 September 1999

  NERAC

  8 October 2000

  New Medical Technology Ltd.

  —

  New Product Technologies Ltd.

  5 November 2001

  Newlands Technology Ltd.

  7 December 2000

  Nickleby

  28 October 2002

  NOI Scotland

  19 July 2002

  NTTU Ltd.

  14 June 2002

  Nutrior Ventures

  23 October 2002

  NXT

  3 December 1999

  Occo Nolf/Charlie Nolf

  10 July 2002

  Ocean Power Delivery

  9 November 2001

  Optima Enclosures Ltd.

  18 July 2001

  Optimat

  1 August 2002

  Orcam Engineering Ltd.

  27 August 2001

  Oxley Systems

  —

  Partnerships UK

  11 October 2002

  Peter Bradley

  26 March 2002

  Photonic Materials

  5 April 2002

  Plade Ltd.

  11 September 2001

  Polaroid (UK) Ltd.

  14 October 2001

  Prosyst Ltd.

  —

  Proven Engineering Ltd.

  23 August 2001

  Psymetrix Ltd.

  —

  Qdos Media Ltd.

  —

  Q-One Biotech Ltd.

  23 October 2001

  Quad Techns/University of Strathclyde

  16 October 2002

  Randak Design Consultants

  —

  Raytheon

  28 February 2002

  ReacTec Ltd.

  9 November 2001

  Reactivise Ltd.

  24 July 2002

  Realise e-Security Ltd.

  15 May 2001

  Red Box Recorders

  23 October 2002

  Reign of Sound

  14 November 2001

  RIVIVO Ltd.

  28 August 2000

  Robert McAnnanay

  24 October 2002

  Rolls Royce

  —

  Root2 Ltd.

  20 September 2002

  Scotlearn

  —

  Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian

  7 November 2002

  Scottish Enterprise Network/Proof of Concept Fund

  29 November 2001

  Scottish Mountain Rescue/University of Strathclyde

  25 January 2002

  Sericol Ltd.

  14 March 2002

  Shady Lady

  25 July 2002

  Shell International Exploration and Production B.V.

  11 February 2002

  Shell Live Wire

  —

  Simclar International Ltd.

  18 October 2001

  Smartfloor UK Ltd.

  1 August 2002

  Stenmar Sonavision Ltd.

  9 July 2002

  Strathclyde Personal Alarm Company Ltd.

  10 November 2002

  Sub Post-Office Initiative

  16 June 2000

  Sustainable Technologies Group

  29 January 2002

  Tannoy Ltd.

  —

  Tazco Ltd.

  14 January 2002

  The Backload.com Ltd,

  29 September 2001

  The Peak Group

  30 October 2001

  The R.E.L.A. Invention

  —

  Thought Storm

  10 January 2002

  TRAK Microwave Ltd.

  1 June 1999

  Trevor Baylis Foundation

  —

  Triton Developments (UK) Ltd.

  19 March 2002

  UKAEA

  26 August 2002

  Ultra Tape

  —

  University of Stirling

  26 October 2001

  University of Strathclyde

  11 April 2002

  University of Strathclyde/Industrial Control Centre

  10 March 2002

  715W

  Company

  Inquiry date

  Valentine Audio Visual

  8 December 2000

  VeriSIM Ltd.

  21 February 2002

  Version 7

  3 August 2001

  Viscotest

  17 May 2001

  Walker Precision Engineering Ltd.

  13 August 2002

  Weidlinger Associates Ltd.

  15 July 1999

  Westica Ltd.

  16 May 2001

  Whiland Press Gratings

  25 February 2002

  William Prestsell

  10 January 2002

  Willie Gorman

  18 October 2002

  Willmot and Associates

  16 August 2000

  Wood Group

  —

  WSP Communications

  26 February 2002

  Xantac Chemicals Ltd.

  —

  Zygomatics Ltd.

  13 January 2002

  Defence Procurement
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total expenditure was on procurement by each of the services in the last year for which figures are available; and how much of the procurement budget for each was spent in Scotland. [86001]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1 February 2002, Official Report, column 601W. The latest figures for "Sea", "Land", "Air" and "other" are still those for 1998–99. Ministry of Defence systems have been changing following the introduction (inter alia) of Smart Acquisition (formerly Smart Procurement) and the move from cash accounting to resource accounting and budgeting (RAB). Consideration has moved from recording and analysing inputs to the armed forces to providing capability. The latest DPA Accounts (HC13 dated 28 November 2002) show that under RAB in the financial year 2001–02, the following resources were expended:

  FY 2001–02

  £ million

  Total expenditure

  4,766

  Strategic deployment

  1,376

  Strike

  1,587

  Manoeuvre

  1,134

  Information superiority

  669

  In addition to these sums, the Defence Logistic Organisation provides support to the front line.

  These categories are not broken down into spend in regional areas.

  Departmental Staff
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) military personnel and (b) civil servants there are in his Department, broken down by region. [87152]

  Dr. Moonie
  The available information is given in table 1 below showing the position for the United Kingdom Regular Forces as at April 2002. For consistency table 2 shows Civilian Personnel as at April 2002 and in addition the latest information as at October 2002.
  716W

  Table 1 UK regular forces2 by country and Government office region (GOR) as at April 2002 (all services)

  Number

  United Kingdom

  171,340

  By Government Office Region

  England

  141,720

  North East

  1,310

  North West

  1,520

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  13,760

  East Midlands

  7,510

  West Midlands

  6,710

  Eastern

  18,460

  London

  6,670

  South East

  49,990

  South West

  35,790

  Wales

  2,290

  Scotland

  14,250

  Northern Ireland4

  7,660

  Unknowns4

  5,420

  Notes:

  1 All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  2 Figures are for UK Regular Forces, both trained and untrained, located in the UK. They therefore exclude Gurkhas, Full-time Reserve Service personnel, the Home Service battalions of the Royal Regiment and mobilised reservists.

  2,291 Gurkhas deployed in the United Kingdom at 1 April 2002.

  1,986 Full-time Reserve Service Personnel at 1 April 2002.

  3,645 Personnel in the Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment at 1 April 2002.

  3 Naval Service personnel on sea service are included against the local authority containing the home port of their ship.

  4The detailed figures have been compiled from unit statistics related to unit postcodes. For some units postcode information is either unavailable or inappropriate. These units include personnel who are known to be in Northern Ireland, so these have been added to the Northern Ireland total. The others are in the `Unknowns' row.

  El Alamein Memorials
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial support was given to UK veterans attending memorials in North Africa for the 60th anniversary of the battle of El Alamein; and if he will make a statement. [87037]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence provided support to the Eighth Army Veterans' Association (EAVA) to commemorate the battle and a service of thanksgiving was held in Westminster Abbey on 30 October; the MOD organised and funded the service. Two other events were also supported by the Department: a Commonwealth service to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the battle (held at the Commonwealth War Cemetery, El Alamein) and an international service (at the Italian War Memorial, near El Alamein). No financial assistance was given to veterans to visit Egypt.

  Executive Agencies
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the expenditure was of each defence agency(a) in total and (b) in Scotland in the last available year; how many staff were employed by each agency (i) in total and (ii) in Scotland in that year. [86385]
  717W
  Dr. Moonie
  Information on expenditure by Defence agencies is contained in the annual report and accounts of each agency, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Information on the number of staff employed by each agency is set out in the table:

  Staff employed by each agency (April 2002)

  Agency

  Total strength

  Staff in Scotland

  UK Hydrographic Office

  882

  4

  Meteorological Office

  2,091

  146

  Service Children's Education

  726

  —

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  106

  —

  Queen Victoria School

  70

  70

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  145

  —

  British Forces Post Office

  340

  7

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  2,019

  82

  Defence Secondary Care Agency

  593

  4

  Ministry of Defence Police

  3,262

  818

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  1,003

  11

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  2,049

  45

  Army Training and Recruitment Agency

  4,250

  104

  Defence Communications Service Agency

  3,054

  107

  Defence Estates

  1,363

  105

  Disposal Services Agency

  78

  3

  Defence Transport and Movements Agency

  314

  —

  Defence Science and Technical Laboratory

  2,825

  45

  Defence Dental Agency

  158

  9

  Medical Supply Agency

  —

  —

  Pay and Personnel Agency

  665

  —

  Defence Bills Agency

  581

  —

  Naval Manning Agency

  106

  —

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre

  135

  —

  Army Personnel Centre

  754

  680

  Warship Support Agency

  7,682

  2,497

  RAF Personnel Management Agency

  236

  —

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency

  229

  109

  Defence Vetting Agency

  262

  3

  Defence Medical Training Organisation

  169

  —

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency

  4,343

  317

  Defence Storage and Distribution Agency

  2,753

  25

  Defence Housing Executive

  935

  88

  Defence Procurement Agency

  3,726

  134

  Defence Geographic Imagery Intelligence Agency

  690

  1

  Veterans Agency

  879

  14

  Firefighters' Strike
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make an assessment of the range of equipment and clothing held by his Department to determine whether it enables it to(a) provide cover for services withdrawn by the fire brigades and (b) conduct firefighting operations for which it is responsible. [87859]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Armed Forces have been supplied with suitable and adequate equipment and clothing to provide the agreed level of fire cover in the event of industrial action being taken by local fire brigades. When not in use the responsibility for such equipment rests with the Office of my right hon Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

  The Defence Fire Services are also supplied with and maintain all the necessary equipment and clothing to conduct those operations for which they are primarily responsible.
  718W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what his present estimates are for(a) the full costs and (b) the additional costs incurred by his Department in planning for and providing military personnel and equipment to cover for services withdrawn by the fire brigades; and what elements his Department has taken into account in calculating its costs incurred in providing such services; [87856]

  (2) what the arrangements are for his Department to recover from the authorities responsible for the provision of such services its costs in providing services withdrawn by the fire brigades; and when he expects his Department to receive the repayments due to it from other authorities in respect of its costs in providing services withdrawn by the fire brigades. [87857]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is too early to make even the broadest of estimates of how much the military assistance will cost at this stage, because the costs incurred during the actual strike periods have yet to be fully captured through the Ministry of Defence's central cost reporting system, and because we have no relevant historical examples to predict from. This prevents the Department from making any accurate costs estimates beyond those associated with the initial purchase of the urgent operational equipment necessary to equip the services.

  In that regard, in the run up to the strike we incurred costs of around £8 million on purchasing major items of equipment such as protective clothing, breathing apparatus and hydraulic cutting equipment.

  Under the rules that apply to operations of this sort, the Ministry of Defence will recover from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) the additional costs that are incurred in providing military assistance, ensuring that the operation is cost neutral so far as the defence budget is concerned.

  We expect to receive repayment for the additional costs incurred thus far by the defence budget on this operation once they have been reported, scrutinised and notified to the ODPM.

  Iraq
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the Common European Security and Defence Policy in the conflict with Iraq. [87311]

  Mr. Hoon
  As the Government have stressed repeatedly, no decisions have been taken with regard to military action in Iraq. Military action there is neither imminent nor inevitable. The European Security and Defence Policy allows the EU to launch military operations where NATO as a whole is not engaged. Any European Security and Defence Policy operation would be within the scope of the Petersberg tasks, which are defined in the EU Treaty as: "humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking".

  Kuwait
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops have been deployed in Kuwait in each month since September 2001; and if he will make a statement. [85372]
  719W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The number of armed forces personnel serving in Kuwait undergoes regular minor fluctuations as working practices and establishment requirements are generated or reviewed, and deployments start or finish for training, liaison and defence diplomacy purposes. The figures given are taken on or near the mid-month point.

  Year

  Number

  September 2001

  471

  October 2001

  525

  November 2001

  497

  December 2001

  482

  January 2002

  501

  February 2002

  517

  March 2002

  502

  April 2002

  494

  May 2002

  504

  June 2002

  497

  July 2002

  480

  August 2002

  470

  September 2002

  588

  October

  493

  November

  626

  The numbers for September and November this year are higher than average because in both months Royal Engineers deployed to Ali Al Salem air base to undertake various necessary building works.

  Networked Capabilities
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations have been made with the US Department of Defense on the development of network centric capabilities compatible with those being developed by the US. [85657]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are continuously engaged in consultation and co-operation with the United States to support the development of compatible (both technically and doctrinally) networked capabilities. Consultation takes place at a departmental level, between United Kingdom and US services and at individual project level.

  Naval Procurement
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much(a) has been spent on naval procurement in each of the last five financial years and (b) is scheduled to be spent on naval procurement in each of the next five years. [84379]

  Dr. Moonie
  Figures for the amount the Ministry of Defence spent on defence equipment procurement for the years 1996–97 to 2000–01 were published by the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) in "UK Defence Statistics" (copies of which are available in the Library of the House).

  Until 1998–99, this publication contained a split of the equipment procurement total by amount spent in each of four environments entitled "sea", "land", "air" and "other". This division did not however necessarily match the particular end destination of the equipment; for example not all "sea" equipment was for use by the
  720W
  Navy—programmes such as the Nimrod Maritime Aircraft came under "sea". "Other" referred to equipment not specific to a particular environment.

  Changes in accounting practice meant that it was not been possible to produce an environment split on a consistent basis after 1998–99. However, for the two years 1999–2000 and 2000–01, it has been possible to produce illustrative estimates of the split for the "sea" environment using data from the MOD (cash) central ledger. Comparable data are not available beyond 2000–01 due to the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting.

  Equipment procurement expenditure and that for the "sea" environment— VAT inclusive at current prices

  million

  Net equipment procurement

  Of which: Sea equipment procurement

  1996–97

  9,100

  2,190

  1997–98

  9,003

  2,142

  1998–99

  9,889

  2,319

  1999–2000

  9,715

  *2,233

  2000–01

  10,008

  *2,211

  Notes:

  1. All figures are inclusive of VAT, which cannot be recovered by the Department.

  2. Sea equipment is not only used by the Navy.

  Source:

  UK Defence Statistics 2002 apart from those marked with a *, which are illustrative estimates drawn from the MOD (cash) central ledger.

  The Ministry of Defence does not use categories such as "naval procurement" when producing plans as to possible future spend on equipment for the armed forces. Focus is instead on capability. Some information, including the estimated cost, of a number of major projects, including the future carrier, astute submarine and the Type 45 destroyer, is however published each year in the National Audit Office's "Major Project Report". The 2002 report was published on 4 December.

  Nuclear Weapons Tests
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former British service people and military medical auxiliaries have been identified from(a) research conducted by or on behalf of his Department and (b) medical statistical data compiled by the former medical division of the Department of Social Security as suffering from the conditions (i) duodenitis and (ii) duodenal ulcer associated with or caused by exposure to irradiation from British atmospheric nuclear tests. [87581]

  Dr. Moonie
  No specific analysis of the incidence of these medical conditions among those who participated in the British atmospheric nuclear tests has been carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. In the 1993, National Radiological Protection Board report NRPB-R266. entitled "Mortality and Cancer Incidence 1952–1990 in UK Participants in the UK Atmospheric Nuclear Weapon Tests and Experimental Programmes", deaths from duodenal ulcer and duodenitis were included in the category, "other diseases of the digestive
  721W
  system", and are shown in Table 6.10 of the report. The table shows a total of 46 deaths in this category in the cohort of test participants up to the end of 1990.

  No medical statistical data have been compiled by the former medical division of the Department of Social Security of nuclear test veterans suffering from these conditions associated with, or caused by, exposure to irradiation from British atmospheric nuclear tests.

  Overseas Personnel
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel are serving overseas; and if he will make a statement. [87686]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to tri-service publication 6: "Global Location of Service Personnel" (TSP 6), a copy of which is held in the Library of the House and is updated on a quarterly basis.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the children of the Far East Prisoners of War (COFEPOW) in respect of the wish of the COFEPOW organisation to promote a memorial and cultural building at the National Arboretum in Staffordshire. [87498]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have responded to a number of letters from hon. Members whose constituents, as members of COFEPOW, have expressed an interest in this subject.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make an ex gratia payment to far eastern ex-civilian prisoners of war whose great grandparents were born in the UK. [87779]

  Dr. Moonie
  The eligibility criterion for the ex gratia payment scheme in relation to former civilian internees held by the Japanese during World War II is that either they, or at least one of their parents or grandparents, should have been born in the United Kingdom. We have no plans to extend the criterion back another generation.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what major(a) variations and (b) delays there have been to the Private Finance Initiative contract for (i) the Electronic Messaging Service (Armymail) and (ii) TAFMIS (IT), since the contracts were signed: what has been the cost of the changes and delays; whether the partners in the PFIs were required to meet these costs; and if he will make a statement; [87579]

  (2) what major variations and delays there have been to the Private Finance Initiative contract for (a) the RAF Fylingdales (power), (b) RAF Lyneham Sewerage, (c) the medium support Helicopter Aircrew Training facility, (d) the DFTS, (e) the Electronic Messaging Service (Armymail) and (f) the Joint Services Command and Staff College, since they were signed; what has been the cost of the changes and delays; whether partners in the PFI were required to meet these costs; and if he will make a statement. [87799]
  722W
  Mr. Ingram
  As this information is not held centrally, officials are working with the individual project teams to collate the data required, which may take some time to complete. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the proposed savings over 25 years by QinetiQ in respect of test and evaluation services are broken down by(a) site and (b) expense category. [87135]

  Dr. Moonie
  The total savings contractually agreed with QinetiQ for the duration of the Test and Evaluation contract are expected to be in the order of £685 million at current prices. QinetiQ's plans for Aberporth, Llanbedr and West Freugh have already been announced and the associated savings are provided in the table. The figures cannot be broken down by each individual expenditure category without disproportionate costs being incurred.

  £ million

  Saving

  Site

  Manpower

  Other

  Total

  Aberporth

  86

  41

  127

  Llanbedr

  60

  90

  150

  West Freugh

  93

  70

  163

  Information on savings at other sites is currently commercially sensitive.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 5 December, Official Report, column 85WS, on QinetiQ, if he will set out the calculation of the adjustments made in the assets and liabilities of QinetiQ prior to setting its sale price; if he will set out the final conditions to which reference is made; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the Carlyle Group bid to become a strategic partner in QinetiQ. [87551]

  Dr. Moonie
  As outlined in my statement of 5 December,Official Report, column 85WS, the transaction values QinetiQ at around 500 million. As is conventional, this valuation was done on a debt-free/cash-free basis. The actual receipt to the Ministry of Defence will therefore be adjusted to take account of a number of factors including: any debts owed by the company, any liabilities for which provision currently exists in the accounts, any cash held by the company and working capital to the extent this is above/below the company's normal level. The precise details of the adjustments are commercially sensitive.

  As is normal in any major transaction there are a number of conditions that must be satisfied between signing and formal completion. These include: laying before Parliament of a Departmental Minute describing any contingent liabilities from the transaction; receipt of EC commission merger clearance; local authority searches and other legal issues relating to property and confirmation of the purchaser's financing arrangements. Certain other conditions exist but as these are commercially sensitive I am withholding them in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  723W
  I am also withholding a copy of The Carlyle Group bid in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  RAF (Flying Charges)
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the hourly RAF charge is to Government Departments for flying with 32 (The Royal) Squadron in(a) BAe 125 and (b) BAe 146 aircraft, broken down into (i) engineering and airframe costs, (ii) costs incurred for handling, landing and navigation services at civil airports, (iii) fuel and (iv) crew subsistence costs. [86953]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the breakdown of the hourly charge to Government Departments for flying with the BAe 125 and BAe 146 aircraft of 32 (The Royal) Squadron:

  £ per hour

  BAe 125

  BAe 146

  Engineering and airframe

  374

  681

  Handling, landing and navigational services at civil airports

  122

  91

  Fuel

  196

  559

  Crew subsistence

  27

  197

  Other

  21

  46

  Total

  740

  1,574

  Note:

  VAT is added to the BAe 125 charge for internal United Kingdom flights.

  Since 1999, this Government has published on an animal basis the overall cost of all Ministers visits overseas and a list of Cabinet Ministers' visits overseas costing more than £500. The list makes clear when RAF flights have been used and the cost of such travel is included in the published overall annual cost. Copies of the lists are in the Libraries of the House.

  All travel is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  RAF Fylingdales
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment was made in the preparation of the analysis of the security of an upgraded RAF Fylingdales, in paragraphs 80–83 of his Department's discussion paper on missile defence, of whether an enhanced Fylingdales facility would present a more attractive terrorist target. [87539]

  Mr. Hoon
  We keep the terrorist threat to all military installations under constant review. We do not consider that the upgrading of RAF Fylingdales for missile defence purposes will significantly change any terrorist threat to the facility.

  RAF Reserve
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 17, what plans he has to bring the training and mobilisation of the RAF reservists together with those of the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Marines at the Reserve Training and Mobilisation Centre, Nottingham. [87220]
  724W
  Dr. Moonie
  Although opportunities for harmonisation are kept under review, there are currently no plans to bring the training and mobilisation of RAF reservists together with those of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Army at the Reserve Training and Mobilisation Centre, Nottingham. Volunteer members of the Reserve Air Forces are mobilised as individuals through the RAF station on which they are based, and where the necessary personnel and pay documentation is already held. In this way, mobilisation and the task of additional training, if required, is absorbed within existing resources. This also allows the reservist to be trained alongside any regular RAF personnel deploying on the same operation.

  Recruitment (Health Criteria)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which health conditions automatically disqualify applicants for a career in the armed services; what the recruitment criteria are for those with poorer eyesight; whether glasses are permitted as correctional treatment; what proposals there are to change the recruitment criteria so that people with a non-serious or mild asthma condition can have a career in the armed services; and if he will make a statement. [87369]

  Dr. Moonie
  The principle applying to health conditions is that new entrants must be fit to serve anywhere in the world, in all environments and in locations where medical care may be limited or remote and medical resupply uncertain, or impossible. Many conditions, especially those controlled by medication or other intervention, which may not limit civilian employment are, nonetheless, incompatible with military service.

  The following conditions make a person unsuitable for enlistment:

  Chest disorders
  Asthma, wheeze or asthma symptoms (and treatment) during the previous four years. Chronic lung disease (e.g. emphysema, bronchiectasis and cystic fibrosis). Active tuberculosis (TB).

  Back problems
  Spinal surgery (including internal fixation or fusion). Recurrent low back pain. Spina bifida.

  Bone or joint problems
  Meniscectomy within the last year. Surgical repair of a knee cruciate ligament. Lower limb fractures with internal fixation still in place. Loss of a limb. Complete loss of a thumb. Total loss of either big toe. Any degree of clubfoot (including past surgery). Chronic joint diseases (e.g. ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and gout). Reiter's disease in last five years. Osteochondritis dissecans.

  Eye disorders
  Chronic eye diseases (e.g. glaucoma, keratoconus, retinitis pigmentosa). Squint surgery in last six months. Corneal problems (e.g. corneal graft and recurrent corneal ulcers). Loss or dislocation of eye lens. Cataract or cataract surgery. Detached retina.

  Ear disorders
  Presence of eardrum ventilation tubes or grommets. Current perforation of eardrum. Chronic ear diseases (e.g. cholesteatoma).
  725W
  Abdominal problems
  Chronic abdominal diseases (e.g. Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis). Kidney disorders (e.g. horseshoe kidney, polycystic kidney disease and kidney stones). Donation of a kidney in last two years. Kidney disease in last two years.

  Neurological disorders
  Epilepsy or more than one seizure/fit after the age of five. Single seizure/fit in the last four years. Multiple sclerosis.

  Skin problems
  Malignant melanoma or skin cancer within last two years. Active skin disease (e.g. eczema and widespread psoriasis).

  Pregnancy
  Current pregnancy or childbirth in the last three months.

  Chronic blood disease
  Sickle cell disease. Congenital spherocytosis. Thalassaemia. HIV seropositivity/AIDS. Carriers of hepatitis B or C. Past history of leukaemia or malignant lymphoma.

  Psychiatric problems
  Schizophrenia. Obsessive-compulsive disorder. Alcohol or drug dependence. Post-traumatic stress disorder.

  Other conditions
  Loss of spleen (splenectomy). Transplanted organs. Severe allergic reactions and/or anaphylaxis requiring adrenaline injection precautions. Nut allergy. Circulation problems (e.g. raynaud's phenomenon or disease). Diabetes. Diseases (e.g. glandular or hormonal) requiring long-term medication or replacement therapy.

  This list is not exhaustive. An application may be rejected due to other medical conditions which are subject to the discretion of Service Medical Authorities.

  Applicants with vision corrected by glasses or contact lenses are generally acceptable. However, certain trades and professions require more stringent standards. For example, drivers requiring a Type 2 licence have to meet DVLA standards. Higher standards still are applied to pilots and other technical military roles.

  As detailed in the list only individuals who have been free of asthma symptoms for a minimum period of four years will be able to join the armed forces. Notwithstanding this, medical entry standards are continuously reviewed against any new developments within medicine with supporting evidence and/or research being considered. Nevertheless, we have no plans to change the present medical entry standards relating to asthma.

  The armed forces are responsible employers and aim to meet the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. This means that they must ensure that recruits are not put at increased risk of injury or illness during their service due to a pre-existing medical condition.

  Reserves Hardship Fund
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the monetary ceiling of the Reserves' Hardship Fund. [87060]

  Dr. Moonie
  Reservists called out into permanent service may apply for financial assistance in the event that their military salary is less than their earnings in civilian life. This assistance is paid in the form of a Reserve Standard Award (RSA). RSA is paid in banded rates that are related to a Reservist's rank. The current 726W
  rates are set out in the Reserve Forces (Call-out and Recall) Financial Assistance Regulations (Statutory Instrument 1997/309). Work is in progress to raise the current bands to reflect the increases in inflation since these were brought into effect, and provide for automatic adjustment in line with inflation. It is currently planned to introduce the revised regulations early in 2003. Reservists are also eligible to apply for a Reserve Hardship Award (RHA) if the RSA alone would cause his/her dependents hardship. There is no ceiling for RHA payments.

  Sponsored Reserves
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the role will be of the sponsored reserves; and if he will make a statement. [87687]

  Dr. Moonie
  The sponsored reserves concept involves a service normally provided in peacetime under contract by civilian staff employed by a contractor being provided on operations by staff drawn from the contractor's civilian workforce who have volunteered to become sponsored reservists. It envisages letting contracts for services on condition that the contractor maintains in his workforce an agreed element of staff who will have volunteered to become sponsored reservists. Should it he necessary to do so, these sponsored reservists would be called-out and serve alongside the armed forces. Their role as sponsored reservists is to continue to provide the contracted support services to the armed forces in an operational environment. They receive appropriate military training in peacetime to equip them to deliver the support required when called out for operations. The details of the individual roles of sponsored reservists will be reflected in their civilian employment contract and the contracts between the employer and the Ministry of Defence.

  Submarines
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total spending has been on the programme to re-fit Britain's nuclear submarines; and how much has been spent on each submarine. [87584]

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

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he plans to take in response to the National Audit Office report on submarine refitting at Devonport. [87765]

  Mr. Ingram
  The report, while acknowledging that lessons for future projects have been identified by the Ministry of Defence, made a number of further recommendations. These are being considered in detail and, where appropriate, will be applied to MOD projects.

  West Freugh Airfield
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees at West Freugh Airfield and Range were employed by(a) the Ministry of Defence, (b) QinetiQ and (c) other contractors on 24 July. [87136]
  727W
  Dr. Moonie
  The following staff were employed at West Freugh on 24 July 2002: 24 from the Ministry of Defence; 141 from QinetiQ; and five from another contractor (SERCo Aerospace).

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many objections to(a) offshore and (b) onshore wind farms his Department has lodged with relevant planning authorities. [86639]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has lodged four formal objections with planning authorities for onshore wind farms and no formal objections for offshore wind farm development.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Anti-TNF Drugs
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many rheumatoid arthritis patients in Northern Ireland are on consultants' waiting lists to assess their condition for the prescription of anti-TNF drugs; and how much funding is available for the prescription of anti-TNF drugs in Northern Ireland. [86949]

  Mr. Browne
  There is no waiting list for rheumatoid arthritis patients awaiting assessment for anti-TNF drugs. However, as of December 2002, there are approximately 260 patients who have already been assessed as likely to benefit from anti-TNF therapy, but have not yet begun this form of treatment.

  Currently, some £1.14 million is employed by health and social services boards and trusts specifically for anti-TNF drugs. An extra £3 million was recently made available to boards and has been made recurrent, in recognition of the exceptional cost of new, effective but highly expensive drug therapies including anti-TNF drugs. Following the Secretary of State's budget announcement on 11 December 2002, further funding will be made available when requirements have been agreed with service providers.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessments are being carried out to ascertain the effectiveness of anti-TNF drugs; and what the timetable is for anti-TNF drugs to be made more widely available. [86950]

  Mr. Browne
  All patients on drug treatments are regularly monitored and treatment regimens are reviewed to assess effectiveness and possible side effects. Further funding for acute services was announced in the Secretary of State's Budget statement on 11 December 2002. Some of this will be made available for patients who could benefit from anti-TNF and other specialist drugs treatments and also for the infrastructure required to support these treatments. I expect anti-TNF drugs therefore to become more widely available next year.

  Asbestos Leakage (SEELB Building)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Health and Safety Executive statement 728W
  of fact and the full report into asbestos leakage at the SEELB HQ building, Dundonald will be published. [86924]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have been advised that the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI) will communicate the findings of its investigation directly to all parties involved in this incident before the end of December 2002.

  Armed Forces (Welfare Support)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures the Government have introduced to support the families of(a) UDR and (b) RIR soldiers murdered by terrorists. [85683]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are a number of measures to support the families of members of the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) and the Royal Irish Regiment (R IRISH). Widows/widowers may be compensated under two schemes, the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) and the War Pensions Scheme (WPS). In addition, the R IRISH have a unique, stand alone Regimental Welfare Organisation that is specifically structured to provide dedicated welfare support to its bereaved families. This welfare structure, which is directly funded by the Ministry of Defence, links into the various agencies that provide support to the rest of the Army.

  Apart from Government support, there are two regimental benevolent funds in operation, the UDR Benevolent Fund and the R IRISH Benevolent Fund. The aims of both funds are the same, namely to provide help and support to the families and soldiers of the regiment, former soldiers and their families and the bereaved families of those soldiers or former soldiers killed as a result of terrorist action.

  Rates
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will calculate what revenue would be generated in Northern Ireland by increasing(a) domestic regional rate, and (b) non-domestic regional rate by one percentage point above current levels. [86647]

  Mr. Pearson
  The revenue generated by increasing the domestic regional rate by 1 per cent. would be £1.2 million and the revenue generated by increasing the non-domestic regional rate by 1 per cent. would be £2.1 million.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for his Department(a) those Comprehensive Spending Review 1998 targets that were outstanding at the time of the statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review 2002, (b) progress on such targets since then and (c) the expected date when targets not yet achieved will be met. [87699]

  Mr. Pearson
  All targets set in the context of the 1998 CSR relate to responsibilities devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive in December 1999. The CSR targets were superseded from 2001–02 onwards by the
  729W
  Executive's Programme for Government which sets priorities, objectives and targets for the Northern Ireland departments.

  Wind Farms
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the grid references are of the location of the landfall for the proposed offshore wind farm at Tunes Plateau; if Coleraine, Limavady, Londonderry and Moyle local authorities will be consulted on the proposed development of the wind farm; and if he will make a statement on the planning process for the proposed development. [87305]

  Mr. Pearson
  It is not possible to provide grid references of the location of any landfall for the Tunes Plateau offshore wind farm because a wide range of potential options are still being considered from an engineering and environmental perspective. No decision on any potential landfall can be made until completion of the following studies:

  NIE's wind farm connection feasibility studies;

  Ornithology and ecology studies (covering both marine and onshore elements);

  Geotechnical and geophysical studies (covering both marine and onshore elements);

  Marine and onshore archaeology studies; and

  Coastal processes and seabed assessments.

  Coleraine, Limavady, Londonderry and Moyle councils were fully consulted during completion of the scope for the environmental impact assessment and will continue to be consulted as further information about the impact of this project comes to light.

  Any developments relating to wind farms which require planning permission will be processed in accordance with current planning procedures; and policies in relation to public advertisement, neighbour notification and council consultation will apply. To date the Department of the Environment has not received such an application.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the source and amount of grants provided to the proposed offshore wind farm development at Tunes Plateau; and what the expected long-term savings to the electricity consumer in Northern Ireland through the proposed development of a wind farm at Tunes Plateau will be. [87288]

  Mr. Pearson
  A private sector consortium comprising B9 Energy, Renewable Energy Systems and PowerGen are carrying out, at their own expense, extensive feasibility studies into the possible development of an offshore wind farm at Tunes Plateau. The project has pre-qualified with the Department of Trade and Industry to be considered for assistance from the UK offshore wind Capital Grant Scheme to ensure that grant aid could be provided from that fund if the development proceeds and it proves necessary.

  The precise nature and size of any offshore wind farm will emerge following the conclusion of the feasibility assessment that is currently ongoing. Until the completion of the feasibility assessment no precise calculations can be made about the volume of electricity
  730W
  that might be generated from the project. Calculations of long-term savings in electricity costs could only be made in the context of certainty regarding the final design of, and output from, the project and taking into account factors such as the costs of grid connection, the alternative costs of electricity from other sources and fossil fuel prices (which are subject to fluctuation).

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the(a) life span, (b) financial costs and (c) environmental impact of decommissioning offshore wind farm sites. [87289]

  Mr. Pearson
  The design life of offshore wind turbines and infrastructure assets is typically considered to be 20 to 25 years.

  Capital costs for offshore wind farms are of the order of £1,000,000/megawatt (MW) installed. This will vary considerably from site to site according to the foundation designs employed, the depth of water at the site and other aspects of the nature of the project site. The report, "Assessment of Offshore Wind Energy Resources", commissioned jointly by the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment and the Department of Public Enterprise in the Republic of Ireland, estimated that costs per installed megawatt (MW) (excluding decommissioning) for typical projects around the island of Ireland ranged from £840,000 to £1,080,000.

  There has not yet been an off-shore wind farm decommissioned anywhere in the world, it is not therefore possible to accurately determine the costs of decommissioning.

  The environmental impact of decommissioning an offshore wind farm is very site-specific and directly related to the foundation options employed during construction.

  However the actual environmental impacts of offshore wind farms including impacts associated with decommissioning have been assessed in the report "An Assessment of the Environmental Effects of Offshore Wind Farms" completed by the Environmental Technology Support Unit in 2000 for Metoc (ETSU/W35/00543/RP, 2000).

TREASURY

  Customs and Excise (Agency Agreements)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a list of the agency agreements in place between HM Customs and private companies. [83450]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise hold and maintain a list of agency agreements with Intellectual Property Right holders to fulfil their obligations under EC Regulation 3295/94 as amended by EC Regulation 241/1999.

  The disclosure of this information would prejudice the enforcement operations of HM Customs and Excise in tackling groups and organisations committed to

  731W
  counterfeit, pirating or patent infringing activities. Exemptions 4 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information apply.

  Annuities
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change his policy on annuities; and what plans he has to give people buying annuities more(a) choice and (b) flexibility. [86943]

  Ruth Kelly
  As promised in the pre-Budget report, the Inland Revenue consultation document on simplification of the taxation of pensions published today, alongside the pensions Green Paper, contains proposals to expand choice and flexibility in the annuities market.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 26 November, reference 81821, what information he estimates is necessary in order to make an estimate of the cost. [84489]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: To estimate the cost of tax relief information would be needed about the amount of the user charges incurred for each year which qualified for tax relief and about the tax position of those claiming relief.

  Inflation Target
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to review the Monetary Policy Committee's inflation target. [86674]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the Bank of England Act 1998, the Treasury is required to specify the inflation target each year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last reviewed the remit for the Monetary Policy Committee at the time of the Budget in April.

  Inland Revenue (Large Business Office)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the revenue collected by the Large Business Office in each of the last five fiscal years was(a) tax, (b) interest and (c) penalties; and if he will make a statement. [87210]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not keep a separate record of the total revenue attributable to taxpayers whose affairs are handled by the Large Business Office.

  National Insurance Records
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, column 315W, on CR74, why (a) 3.5 million national insurance records were no longer needed, and (b) 1.3 million records required further checking; and how long the 3.5 million national insurance records that were no longer needed were in circulation after the date on which they should have been withdrawn. [86706]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue keeps more than one record for a customer when the circumstances warrant it, but processes are in place to check and keep records updated as part of normal customer service.732W
  National insurance records were not affected by CR74. The exercise simply brought together the information on separate tax records relating to individual taxpayers and created a single tax record for them. As a result, a total of 3.5 million records were no longer needed. 1.3 million records require further checking to confirm that the correct National Insurance Number is being used. It is not possible, except at disproportionate cost, to find out how long records existed before being brought together as part of CR74.

  Savings Directive
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2002 (Ref. 87201), if he will give the reasons why Bermuda was not included in the list of dependent or associated territories agreed at the Feira European Council for the purposes of the Savings Directive. [87853]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 12 December 2002,Official Report, column 475W).

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for his Department(a) those Comprehensive Spending Review 1998 targets that were outstanding at the time of the statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review 2002, (b) progress on such targets since then and (c) the expected date when targets not yet achieved will be met. [87703]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department publishes progress against all its outstanding PSA targets in its departmental report (Cm 5425 June 2002) and autumn performance report (Cm 5665 Dec 2002) published after the announcement of the Spending Review.

  Tax Credits (Leigh)
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people will be eligible to claim(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit in the Leigh constituency; and what he estimates the total annual financial budget will be to Leigh of each of these measures. [87243]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Nine out of 10 families with children will be eligible for the child tax credit, to be introduced in April 2003.

  Estimates of the number of families with children expected to benefit from (a) the child tax credit and (b) working tax credit by Government Office Region are shown in the table below.

  Thousands

  Government Office Region

  Number of families expected to benefit from the child tax credit

  Number of families expected to benefit from the working tax credit

  North East

  290

  70

  North West and Merseyside

  750

  210

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  540

  150

  East Midlands

  380

  90

  West Midlands

  500

  130

  Eastern

  460

  90

  London

  700

  130

  South East

  670

  140

  South West

  470

  130

  733W

  Thousands

  Government Office Region

  Number of families expected to benefit from the child tax credit

  Number of families expected to benefit from the working tax credit

  Wales

  320

  80

  Scotland

  430

  90

  Northern Ireland

  220

  50

  Total

  5,750

  1,350

  Thalidomide
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many beneficiaries of the Thalidomide Trust live in(a) West Midlands and (b) the Dudley MBC. [87375]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Animal Rights Activists
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what steps the Government have taken to protect medical research companies against the actions of animal rights activists. [87984]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are determined that animal rights extremists will not prevent companies carrying out legitimate business in the UK and that these companies will be protected from intimidation and harassment. In recognition of the exceptional circumstances Huntingdon Life Sciences Group plc have found themselves in, the DTI has previously agreed to provide banking facilities for Huntingdon Life Sciences Group plc. The DTI is now extending its support to facilitate the provision of insurance services to Huntingdon Life Sciences Group plc on a worldwide basis. Both these actions have been taken to secure Huntingdon Life Sciences Group plc from the harm caused by the criminal intimidation and assault being directed at its employees, including their families and friends, and also those of its suppliers, customers and other companies. Huntingdon Life Sciences Group plc is a world-leading provider in the highly regulated area of essential research, development and toxicological testing services for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and chemical industries. Any commercial damage to these industries or their supporting services, like Huntingdon Life Sciences, would have a very serious impact on UK scientific and medical research. The DTI is not using commercial insurance companies or brokers at this time and is providing insurance through its own resources.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements on the CHP sector. [86198]

  Mr. Wilson
  The most recent data on CHP output can be found in the DTI and National Statistics Publication, the "2002 Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics".734W
  This states that 'good quality' CHP electricity output in 2001 had declined by 17 per cent. on the level recorded in 2000 and that the annual growth rate of installed capacity slowed to about 0.8 per cent.

  May I also refer my hon. Friend to the Government's response of 4 April 2002 to the consultation on NETA and smaller generators and to Ofgem's review of the first year of NETA, where the impact of NETA on CHP is discussed in the chapter concerning smaller generators.

  I am also concerned about the impact on manufacturing investments to the energy sector. The forthcoming Energy White Paper will give the opportunity to discuss these issues in more depth.

  Consumer Credit Act
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the annual cost was in England and Wales of trading standards activity on consumer credit and finance and the enforcement of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in each year since 1997. [86971]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The trading standards activities of local authorities are funded through the revenue support grant, and the allocation of resources to individual trading standards functions is a matter for each local authority to determine. It is therefore not possible to state the annual cost in England and Wales of trading standards activity on consumer credit and finance and the enforcement of the Consumer Credit Act.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the annual costs of the OFT were in relation to the implementation of its activities under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in each year since 1997; [86973]

  (2) what the annual income generated for the Office of Fair Trading was from licensing of organisations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in each year since 1997. [86972]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Office of Fair Trading's income from its licensing activities under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for each of the last five financial years was:

  1997–98: £4,116,713

  1998–99: £4,088,375

  1999–2000: £3,801,851

  2000–01: £3,406,593

  2001–02: £3,846,120

  During the same period, the annual costs to the OFT of its functions under the Act were:

  1997–98: £3,829,503

  1998–99: £4,063,273

  1999–2000: £4,128,732

  2000–01: £4,565,000

  2001–02: £5,379,415

  Debt
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the annual costs to public funds were of(a) Citizens Advice Bureaux and (b) money advice centres, in relation to individuals in debt in (i) England

  735W
  and Wales and (ii) the UK in each year since 1997; what proportion of these costs relate to (A) consumer credit and finance and (B) creditor organisations licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. [86974]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Individual Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABx) are not funded by Central Government. Each local CAB is a separate independent charity funded usually by local authorities, charitable trusts etc.

  DTI funds both the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) and Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS). NACAB and CAS provide both focus and support for the work of the CAB Service in England, Wales and Scotland. NACAB and CAS also provides training services and IT support to CABx, and is responsible for setting the standards of membership for the service. DTI expects to provide NACAB with grant-in-aid funding of £17.1 million, and CAS with grant-in-aid funding of 2.8 million in this financial year.

  In addition, 14.55 million is paid for money advice to individuals in debt in the UK.
  DTI (jointly with Treasury, Scottish Executive and the Lord Chancellor's Department) provide £1.15 million to fund the National Debtline Pilot. Between 1 March and 10 December 2002, it has helped 18,403 clients. Of these, 90.9 per cent. of calls were from England and Wales, with the remainder being from Scotland and Northern Ireland;
  The Legal Services Commission (LSC) spent £9.9 million in 2001–02 on payments to not-for-profit organisations providing money advice in England and Wales; and
  The Scottish Executive are supplying £3 million per annum to provision front line specialist money advice across Scotland. They are also providing an additional £500,000 per annum for provision of central support for the sector (i.e. training/secondary advice/common standards etc).
  Due to the way in which the figures are collected, it is impossible to give a meaningful breakdown of what proportion of funding is used in relation to consumer credit and finance, and creditor organisations licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what action the Government is taking outside the UN to ascertain information regarding the alleged breaches of the OECD guidelines on multinational enterprises by UK companies referred to in the UN Panel of Experts' report on resource exploitation in the DRC; [85630]

  (2) what the response was from the UN to the Government's request for information from the UN Panel of Experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources of the DRC regarding the alleged breach of OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises committed by UK companies; [85748]

  (3) what information has been requested by the Government from the UN Panel of Experts of resource exploitation in the DRC regarding the alleged breach of OECD guidelines by United Kingdom companies; and on which (a) individuals and (b) companies information has been requested; [85749]
  736W
  (4) when the Government first requested information from the UN Panel of Experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources of the DRC regarding alleged breaches of the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises committed by United Kingdom companies as listed in Annex III of their report; and to whom this request was made. [85747]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We are seeking more information from the UN panel before considering what action we might want to take.

  The UK, along with other members of the Security Council, has asked for more information on the claims made in the Panel's latest report. We have asked specifically for information on the allegations made against UK companies and nationals. We have yet to receive this material.

  The current Panel's mandate expired when it submitted its last report (18 October 2002). There is currently no mechanism or process in place to take forward the Panel's work. We are pressing, through discussions at the UN, for a speedy resolution to this administrative problem.

  We have asked for details of the basis for designating the 12 British companies appearing in Annex III. Annex III is a list of all the entities the Panel considers to be in breach of OECD guidelines. None of these entities are individuals.

  The United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations requested additional information from the UN Panel of Experts about companies allegedly in breach of OECD guidelines in Security Council consultations on 24 October 2002.

  DRAX Power Station
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason Of gem arranged for National Grid Transco to purchase 25 per cent. of the output of the DRAX power station; whether(a) she and (b) her officials were consulted about these arrangements; and if she will make a statement. [87109]

  Mr. Wilson
  I understand that as part of its contingency planning associated with the financial difficulties experienced by TXU Energy, NGC assessed the risk to security of supply in the very short term of a significant volume of generation becoming unavailable to the electricity system.

  On this occasion, NGC considered that it was appropriate to enter into contractual arrangements to ensure that there was sufficient contingency reserve. I understand that. NGC has explained its actions at its recent Operational Forum for market participants.

  Steel Industry (Future Aircraft Carrier)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the ability of the UK steel industry to meet the demands of the future aircraft carrier project. [87122]

  Alan Johnson
  The UK steel industry produces a range of products for use in marine applications, including naval vessels. However the exact specification
  737W
  of the steel required for the future aircraft carrier project is not known at present. This will be a matter for the prime contractor, when appointed.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from when the regulations introducing a VAT concession for commercially-provided home care will apply. [86681]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Commercially provided care for people in residential and nursing homes has been exempt from VAT since the introduction of the tax in 1973. The Government have no plans to change this exemption.

  Newspaper Distribution
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to receive the Office of Fair Trading review of the Code of Practice on Newspaper Distribution. [86592]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Office of Fair Trading published its review of the Code of Practice on newspaper distribution on 12 December. Its provisional recommendation, that selling-on should be fully liberalised, is now open to a further period of public consultation until 14 March 2003.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total expenditure of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies was on official travel in 2001–02. [84793]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: Since 1999, the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 was published on 24 July 2002, Official Report, column 75W. The cost of Ministers' visits overseas for 2002–03 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

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

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total budget of(a) her Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03. [84939]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: Since 1999, the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 was published on 24 July 2002, Official Report, column 75W. The cost of Ministers' visits overseas for
  738W
  2002–03 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

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

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the PIN numbers to be used by post office cards will be on a number pad on the counter; and how partially sighted and blind people will be able to use the new system. [86562]

  Mr. Timms
  The matters raised by this question fall within the day to day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to promote the use of post office card accounts; and when she expects information on the accounts to be available in post offices. [87404]

  Mr. Timms
  The post office card account is one of a range of accounts which people will be able, from next year, to receive benefit payments into. Our aim is that people should be able to choose the option which suits them best. Information about all the options is being supplied to customers by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue. When it is their turn to change the method of benefit and pension payments, the Government will be writing to customers with information which clearly sets out their account options and enables them to freely choose the account that is right for them. The migration programme will last two years beginning in 2003.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what banks and building societies have registered as Post Office banking partners; and what other banks are expected to become partners by April 2003. [87610]

  Mr. Timms
  All the major banks and the Nationwide Building Society have signed contracts with Post Office Ltd. to make their own basic bank accounts accessible at post offices. The Post Office already provides banking services on behalf of Girobank/Alliance and Leicester, Barclays, Lloyds TSB, the Co-operative Bank and the Internet banks smile and cahoot. This (paper based) service enables customers of these banks to make deposits and cash cheques at post offices free of charge.

  Postcodes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new postcode areas have been introduced in each decade since 1972. [87341]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The first postcodes were introduced on a trial basis in Norwich in 1959. The Postcode Address File (PAF) owned by Royal Mail contains over 27 million addresses with over 1.7 million postcodes.
  739W
  There are currently 124 postcode areas, 3,000 postcode districts and 9,700 postcode sectors.

  In 1972 there were 120 postcode areas. Since that time Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man have been postcoded (JE, GY and IM) respectively. The IM and GY postcodes date from 1993 and the JE ones from 1994. The only other new postcode area to be added since 1972 was HS for the Hebrides which was introduced in 1995 to overcome specific quality of service problems.

  Postcomm
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has made to Postcomm on their recent proposals. [87522]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government has a clear interest as the shareholder in Royal Mail Group. The Department therefore made a response to Postcomm's recent consultation document on the proposal for a second price control. The response concerned the financial package that the Government is putting in place to enable the mails business to implement its renewal plan.

  Recruitment Consultants
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria she uses to assess the performance of the recruitment consultants employed by her Department. [86200]

  Ms Hewitt
  Recruitment consultants are appointed, through a competitive tendering process, for all my Department's major external recruitment campaigns. This enables the Department to choose the most appropriate contractor for each specific situation. A call-off arrangement, negotiated by Cabinet Office, exists for recruitment consultants who specialise in appointments into the Senior Civil Service.

  The specification for the recruitment services to be provided is announced at an early stage, which provides a basis for assessing the performance of the contractor, and regular project meetings enable problems to be identified and solutions found. Performance is also assessed at the end of each campaign, and any lessons learned are carried forward to the next.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets have been set for regional development agencies in respect of encouraging innovation. [87839]

  Alan Johnson
  Targets for each Regional Development Agency (RDA) in respect of encouraging innovation are set through the corporate planning process. Targets set for 2002–03 and 2003–04 are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Renewable Energy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support since 1997 her Department has provided to facilitate the development of(a) geothermal, (b) wave, (c) tidal and (d) solar energy technologies. [84730]
  740W
  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: The table provides data on the financial support given by the Department to the technologies specified since 1997. No support is given, at present, to the development of geothermal technologies; however, funding is available for grid-connected early pre-commercial wave and tidal stream projects and innovative solar photovoltaic schemes. This is, in addition, to the funding that is also available under my Department's New and Renewable Energy Programme, which calls for proposals for research and development projects that align with the long-term technology strategies developed in partnership with industry, academia and other key stakeholders.

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Geothermal

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Wave

  0.00

  0.09

  0.01

  0.33

  0.66

  Tidal

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.03

  0.31

  Solar

  1.66

  0.98

  1.73

  1.40

  2.70

  The figures for support for wave and tidal in 2000–01 and 2001–02 have been revised recently.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the accumulated surpluses of Royal Mail Holdings were and how much were paid(a) in and (b) out of the surplus in each year since its formation. [86451]

  Ms Hewitt
  The company that is now known as Royal Mail Holdings plc was incorporated on 20 September 2000. It acquired all the shares in what was then Consignia plc on 26 March 2001. Movements in the accumulated surpluses during financial periods since that date are shown in the table.

  Reduction in surplus (reserves)

  Accumulated surpluses (reserves)

  26 March 2001

  3,299

  953

  31 March 2002

  2,346

  478

  29 September 2002

  1,868

  Note:

  The reductions in the accumulated surpluses were due to exceptional items.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Class Sizes
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidelines her Department has laid down for class sizes in practical subjects. [87150]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department's safe practice guidance for practical subjects does not set down maximum pupil numbers. Sizes of practical groups and pupil teacher ratios are matters for local education authorities and schools. They are required to assess risks to health and safety and should take account of potential hazards; the ages and abilities and special
  741W
  educational needs of the pupils; and relevant safety regulations in relation to the accommodation, equipment and activities.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the judgment by Mr. Justice Keith on 23rd November 2001 in respect of the future of the construction industry training board levy. [86532]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The judgment by Mr. Justice Keith has shown clearly that the definition of "Contractors' Plant" as defined in the Industrial Training (Construction Board) Order of 1964 is clear and unambiguous and that the Construction Industry Training Board had acted in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.

  Sangatte
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how far the education of children from Sangatte admitted to the UK under special arrangements will be the responsibility of local education authorities; what estimate he has made of the cost; and how local education authorities will be compensated by central government. [87511]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: Local education authorities will be responsible for the education of children from Sangatte as they would for any other child. They have a legal duty to ensure that education is available for all children of compulsory school age in their area, irrespective of a child's immigration status or rights of residence.

  No estimate has been made of the cost, but the number of children is likely to be small, so local education authorities will be able to meet the cost of educating these children from their current budgets. Furthermore, as was announced on 5 December, there is to be an increase in education funding for the next financial year.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the(a) secondary modern schools and (b) other non-selective schools in local education authority areas where there are grammar schools which have been awarded (i) beacon school status and (ii) specialist school status since 1 May 1997. [87832]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department plans to take to improve awareness of HIV and the need for better sexual health practices among younger people. [85671]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Teaching about safer sex remains one of the Government's key strategies for reducing the incidence of HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted 742W
  infections (STIs). Strategies for teaching about HIV/AIDS are covered by our Sex and Relationship Education Guidance which was sent to all schools in July 2000. These include helping pupils to clarify their knowledge and enabling them to become effective users of services that help prevent and treat STIs and HIV.

  A report earlier this year by the Office for Standards in Education recommended that coverage of HIV and AIDS in schools is enhanced. We have responded to the report by commissioning practical guidance for teachers on HIV and STIs.

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when his Department will publish its policy on language teaching in primary schools. [87229]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The Department will shortly be publishing its National Language Strategy. The strategy will set out how we will drive forward our agenda, outlined in the `Language learning' pamphlet published earlier this year, to reverse the cycle of underperformance and transform this country's capability in languages.

  Specialist Subject Teachers
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he is taking to support and develop the skills of teachers in specialist subjects. [82736]

  Mr. Miliband
  These skills are supported and developed through several funded programmes. The Key Stage 3 strategy is focused on developing the skills of teachers in the national curriculum core and foundation subjects in all secondary schools. Generally, higher education institutions and other providers, including some subject associations, are funded to run postgraduate professional programmes in a number of priority areas, including secondary core and foundation curriculum subjects and specialist teaching in Key Stages 1 and 2. In partnership with the Wellcome Trust we are creating a national network of science learning centres to support the professional development of science teachers and science technicians.

  The Department's Continuing Professional Development Strategy also funds schemes that support the professional development of individual teachers in areas of their choice. The strategy includes: 500 bursaries, available to all teachers in their fourth and fifth years in the profession; Best Practice Research Scholarships of up to £2,500 a year for around 1,000 teachers who submit proposals of appropriate quality; six-week sabbaticals for teachers with more than five years experience in challenging schools; a pilot Early Professional Development scheme—in 12 LEAs—which offers up to £3,000 for professional development to teachers during their second and third years in the profession. Teachers can, and often do, choose to spend their bursaries and scholarships on activities that develop their subject specialist knowledge and skills.

  We will be producing a consultation paper in the New Year on strengthening support for subject specialism.
  743W

  Spending Statistics
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average spending is on each child in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) England and (ii) Devon. [87312]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the latest available information:

  Average net current expenditure (after recharges) per pupil in maintained primary and secondary schools

  LEA/area name

  Primary

  Secondary

  Devon

  2,300

  2,930

  England

  2,440

  3,060

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the elements of the standards fund for the current financial year, showing the total(a) spent and (b) budgeted under each heading. [87193]

  Mr. Miliband
  Budgets for each of the Standards Fund grants for 2002–2003 are shown in the following table. Information about the total spent for each grant is not available.

  The Standards Fund

  School Improvement

  136,709,004

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  84,549,663

  Special Education Needs

  42,119,994

  Sick Children and Children in Public Care

  5,193,316

  Teenage Pregnancy

  4,999,999

  Drug, Alcohol and Tobacco Prevention

  10,438,860

  Study Support (National)

  28,637,894

  Study Support (Excellence in Cities)

  18,999,999

  Child Protection Co-ordinators

  1,325,000

  Behaviour and Improvement Programme

  50,003,000

  National Literacy Strategy

  38,888,251

  National Numeracy Strategy

  38,850,044

  Key Stage 3 Strategy

  96,464,450

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  81,057,034

  Traveller Children Achievement

  8,135,041

  Year 6 Booster Classes

  52,677,620

  Education Health Partnerships

  9,819,993

  Qualifications

  1,521,724

  LEA Music Services

  59,633,546

  Playing for Success

  1,813,365

  Early Years Training and Development

  7,020,009

  Early Excellence Centres (Recurrent)

  8,194,327

  Early Excellence Centres (Capital)

  3,347,208

  Adult: Pupil Ratios in Reception Classes

  10,985,930

  School Achievement Awards

  58,900,210

  Nursery Schools Project

  4,906,484

  Training for Educational Visits Coordinators

  2,355,600

  Children of Asylum Seekers

  2,050,500

  Excellence in Cities (EiC) and Excellence Clusters

  174,542,990

  Gifted and Talented Summer Schools

  3,816,000

  Specialist Schools (Recurrent)

  109,184,260

  Specialist Schools (Capital)

  20,350,000

  Beacon Schools

  40,168,850

  Pupil Support Allowances

  8,988,00

  Pupil Learning Credits

  19,637,587

  Partnerships between Grammar and non-selective Schools

  308,477

  City Learning Centres (Recurrent)

  17,165,477

  City Learning Centres (Capital)

  21,800,000

  Excellence Challenge

  17,230,556

  Small Education Action Zones

  27,456,891

  Diversity Pathfinders

  920,150

  Extended Schools

  5,000,000

  Induction of newly qualified teachers

  35,510,699

  Teacher Recruitment Incentives

  26,288,585

  Training Schools

  4,189,000

  744W

  The Standards Fund

  Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs)

  23,421,468

  Performance Management and Threshold Assessment

  14,474,890

  Teaching Assistants

  102,757,478

  Small Schools Fund

  41,082,080

  Teacher Recruitment and Retention Fund

  44,001,000

  Teacher Sabbaticals

  9,762,000

  Early Professionals Developments Pilot Programme

  6,056,182

  Welcome Back Bonuses

  680,702

  Transforming School Workforce (TSW) Pathfinder

  3,784,311

  Fast Track Payments

  318,000

  National Grid for Learnng (NGFL)

  181,524,946

  Infant Class Sizes (Capital)

  1,527,402

  Infant Class Sizes (Recurrent)

  143,899,459

  NDS Devolved Formula Capital

  363,336,677

  Seed Challenge Capital

  60,000,000

  Staff Workspaces

  11,999,998

  Learning Support Units (Non EiC)

  9,987,269

  New School Security Projects

  9,999,996

  Fresh start and new partnerships (Recurrent)

  7,562,157

  Fresh start and new partnerships (Capital)

  11,683,362

  Condition Funding

  349,412,444

  Information Management Strategy

  7,039,908

  Key Stage 2 class size recurrent funding

  6,906,229

  Key Stage 2 class size capital funding

  18,630,026

  Capital funding for nursery education in disadvantaged areas

  19,938,691

  Capital Projects

  58,999,102

  Laptops for teachers

  59,846,307

  Electronic registration systems in secondary schools

  9,678,140

  e-Learning Credits

  29,929,186

  TEC Assets
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the disposition of TEC assets. [87115]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department's accounts have now been audited by the NAO and are due to be laid before the House in January 2003.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Adoption
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children were allowed into the United Kingdom from overseas countries for adoption by United Kingdom residents during the last 12 months, broken down by country. [86823]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the number of children admitted to the United Kingdom from overseas countries for adoption is not currently available.

  The most up to date information that is available covers the number of children given indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of adoption. This number excludes those children given limited leave to remain and who are subsequently adopted through the UK courts, becoming British citizens on the date that the final adoption order is made.
  745W
  A total of around 25 adopted children were given indefinite leave to remain in 2001. The nationalities of the children were:

  Australia

  Brazil

  Canada

  Cyprus

  Ghana

  Guatemala

  India

  Malawi

  Mexico

  Morocco

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  St. Vincent and the Grenadines

  South Africa

  Thailand

  Turkey

  United States of America

  Yemen

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  There were fewer than 10 cases for each nationality.

  Animal Experiments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications made under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were rejected in each year from 1991. [85842]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Our central database only holds the requested information for the last two years. This shows that two applications were formally refused, both in 2001. One was for a project licence and the other for a personal licence. Over the same period 115 project licence applications, 54 personal licence applications and one application for a certificate of designation have so far been recorded as not proceeded with.

  A feature of the regulatory regime under the 1986 Act is the discussion that often takes place at an early stage between applicants (or prospective applicants) and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. This means that proposals unlikely to meet the Act's stringent requirements are revised or withdrawn before formal refusal becomes necessary.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the survey conducted by the Schools Health Education Unit on cannabis use by younger teenagers. [85101]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The survey suggests many 14 to 15-year-olds thought cannabis was 'safe' to use. Most young people are aware of the enormous dangers involved in using Class A drugs but they often overlook the longer-term damage to health caused by smoking cannabis, particularly when it is smoked on a regular basis. We will be making sure that the harm it causes is communicated—young people need to know the dangers that all drugs cause.
  746W
  This is one of the reasons why reducing the frequent use of any illicit drug has been included within the updated drug strategy target for young people. Government Departments are now looking at how best to convince young people about the health risk associated with cannabis use.

  The Department for Education and Skills will be revising its guidance to schools on the delivery of drug education and the revised guidance will be available in September 2003. We will also be working with youth media and health organisations to make sure the health risks associated with smoking cannabis are much more widely understood.

  Correspondence
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 7 November,Official Report, columns 824–25W, when he will write to the hon. Member for Reading, East. [87216]

  Beverley Hughes
  A letter was sent on 16 December 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 28 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mohammad Delowar Selinan. [87656]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon Friend on 16 December 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 24 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Nisar Ahmed. [86656]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 17 December 2002.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the staffing levels are at the Criminal Records Bureau. [86721]

  Hilary Benn
  There are 1,158 staff employed in the Criminal Records Bureau at its Liverpool and Darwen sites, comprising staff employed by the agency, Capita and sub-contractors.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications to the Criminal Records Bureau from addresses in postcode areas CO1, CO2, CO3 and CO4 are awaiting processing; what is the average time the applications have been delayed; and if he will make a statement. [86058]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: As at 9 December, there are 562 Disclosure applications awaiting processing from applicants who live in postcode areas C01, C02, CO3 and C04. The average delay is estimated to be eight weeks, although this includes a significant number of applications which have been returned to the applicant for more

  747W
  information which is still awaited. On average, recent correctly completed applications are taking five weeks to process.

  Delays in the Disclosure process continue to be a subject of some concern. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's independent review team are taking a fundamental look at all aspects of the Criminal Records Bureau's (CRB's) operation with a view to identifying medium to long term improvements. They will report to the Home Secretary shortly.

  The CRB has already implemented a range of improvements to processes and working practices and the intensive focus on improvements is already yielding results. Over the last two weeks the CRB has been averaging around 43,500 Disclosures per week, which is double the weekly output issued by the police under the previous arrangements. Since 11 March the CRB has received 1,023,000 applications and issued over 755,000 Disclosures.

  Table: Persons convicted of 'trafficking' offences involving heroin and cannabis, Nottinghamshire and Great Britain, 1998–2000

  Nottinghamshire

  Great Britain1

  Drug and offence

  1998

  1999

  2000

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Heroin

  Unlawful supply

  12

  68

  69

  1,378

  1,760

  1,832

  Possession with intent to supply unlawfully

  24

  38

  55

  1,311

  1,454

  1,502

  Unlawful import/export2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  38

  34

  3110

  Cannabis

  Unlawful supply

  48

  55

  40

  3,038

  2,701

  1,886

  Possession with intent to supply unlawfully

  86

  61

  60

  4,898

  4,206

  3,282

  Unlawful import/export2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  313

  315

  3451

  1Conviction data from 1997 onwards are not currently available for Northern Ireland.

  2 Data from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are only available at a UK level.

  3 Estimated from court appearance data for England and Wales.

  Sources:

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Court Proceedings Database and Drugs and Alcohol Research Unit

  Ethnic Minority Women's Voluntary Organisations
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of ethnic minority women's voluntary organisations in the UK; and how many of these have benefited from regeneration programmes such as health action zones. [86497]

  Beverley Hughes
  Government statistics are not kept on the number of ethnic minority women's voluntary organisations in the United Kingdom. However the Council for Ethnic Minority Voluntary Organisations (CEMVO), an umbrella organisation funded by the Home Office to provide services to the black and minority ethnic (BME) voluntary and community sector had 444 BME women's organisations run by women on their database as of 9 December 2002.

  Information for the number of ethnic minority women's voluntary organisations which have benefited from Health Action Zones or other regeneration programmes is not available centrally. Many programmes do however support marginalised groups and have strategies in place to increase their participation. In 2001 for instance, 560 (36 per cent.) of
  748W

  Smuggling
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been(a) in Nottinghamshire and (b) in the United Kingdom for the smuggling of (i) heroin, (ii) cigarettes and (iii) cannabis, in each of the last three years. [82938]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information requested is not available in the form requested. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise figures show that the number of persons sentenced for all offences of smuggling tobacco within the United Kingdom was 884 in 2000–01 and 431 in 2001–02. Figures are not available on a comparative basis for such offences before 2000–01, and there are no figures available by county or police force area.

  Such information as is currently available on drug `trafficking' offences in Nottinghamshire and Great Britain is given in the table. Drug 'trafficking' offences normally include the illicit production of drugs and the illicit cultivation of cannabis plants, but these are outside the definition of smuggling and have been excluded.

  the 1,555 community champions funded by the Community Champions Fund were from BME communities, a success attributable to strategies such as simple application form and positive role models.

  The voluntary and community sector (VCS) makes a vital contribution to tackling deprivation and promoting community cohesion. We are working across Government to further increase our support for the sector. Race equality has been placed in the mainstream of all areas of neighbourhood renewal and regeneration. We are also raising awareness of the Compact, the framework for effective partnership working between Government and the VCS, and are developing a more robust evidence base for marginalised sectors such as BME women's groups so that all parts of Government can better respond to the VCS's requirements.

  Extradition Applications (France)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been received from France for extradition of persons to face terrorist charges, in each of the last 5 years; when
  749W
  each application was received; what progress has been made; what the reasons are for delay in process; and if he will make a statement. [85718]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: In the past five years, France has made requests for the extradition of three persons accused of charges relating to terrorist activity.

  One request made in March 1996 led to the fugitive's surrender to France in March 1998.

  In another, a request made in April 2001 has just completed its judicial stages. The fugitive now has a statutory opportunity to make representations to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as to why his surrender should not take place. Those representations are awaited.

  In the remaining case, there are two outstanding requests. The first covers three separate requisitions made in November and December 1995 and in February 1996. Following lengthy proceedings, a decision in October 2001 to order surrender was quashed in June 2002 by the courts. We are awaiting a response from French authorities on matters raised by the judgment in order that the case may be reviewed. A further request for extradition, involving additional charges, was made in the same case in October 2001. That matter is still before the courts.

  A Bill to streamline and modernise current extradition procedures is now before parliament.

  Immigration Officers (Waterloo Station)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether immigration officers based at Waterloo station will be permitted to continue to work at Waterloo in the event that they decline to work in France or Belgium. [86860]

  Officers of all grades will continue to be deployed at Waterloo International while there is a continuing business and operational need.

  There will be opportunities for staff who are not willing to work overseas in France or Belgium to transfer to other locations.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the working month of immigration officers based at Waterloo station who undertake work in France and Belgium will be spent at either venue; and what extra allowances or salaries will be paid. [86861]

  Beverley Hughes
  Officers of all grades undertake juxtaposed immigration control duties on a voluntary basis. On average officers currently perform one such duty per week. In early 2003 local management at Waterloo will commence trials which will test a four night and a nine night package in France. These trials will last six months. We are unable to comment on the frequency that staff will be expected to carry out these duties until the results of these trials have been evaluated.

  In addition to their salary, staff receive overtime payments for excess hours worked and a locally agreed subsistence allowance to cover additional out of pocket expenditure. The Department meets hotel costs.
  750W
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if immigration officers based at Waterloo station will be obliged to agree to undertake work in(a) France and (b) Belgium. [86862]

  Beverley Hughes
  Officers of all grades based at Waterloo undertake juxtaposed immigration control duties in France and Belgium on a voluntary basis. At present officers stay one night overseas.

  In early 2003, local management at Waterloo will trial a range of options to determine a more efficient means of staffing juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium. A trawl seeking volunteers to take part in these trials will be published early in the new year. We will evaluate the trial after six months and do not rule out compelling staff to work in France and Belgium should there be insufficient volunteers.

  Iraqi Asylum Seekers
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi asylum seekers he estimates had their applications refused during the 1997 to 2001 Parliament. [86908]

  Beverley Hughes
  There were 12,550 initial decisions on Iraqi asylum applications during the period 1 May 1997 and 31 May 2001. Of these 6,175 were refused. There are no reliable data available in this period for the number of Iraqis who subsequently appealed, and the decisions of those appeals.

  Information on asylum applications and initial decisions is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the period October to December 2002, and will be available from 28 February 2003 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl .html.

  Wormwood Scrubs (Max Glatt Unit)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Max Glatt Unit at Wormwood Scrubs prison in increasing health standards. [87442]

  Hilary Benn
  There has been no research into the effectiveness of the Matt Glatt Unit in increasing health standards.

  Passports (Children in Care)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports were issued to children in(a) the care of UK local authorities and (b) long-term foster care during each of the last five years. [87123]

  Beverley Hughes
  This information is not held by the United Kingdom Passport Service.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to review procedures for issuing passports to children in long-term foster care with birth parents who are not contactable. [87125]

  Beverley Hughes
  No. The UK Passport Service requirements that parental consent is given before a passport is issued to a child and that evidence of an
  751W
  appropriate court order be produced before accepting consent form a local authority social services department, are based on sound principles and are correct in law. It would be wrong for the UK Passport Service to attempt to decide whether or to whom parental rights have transferred in these circumstances; these are matters for the courts. The UK Passport Service is drawing up a guidance note for social services departments to clarify requirements for passport applications.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on procedures used to issue passports to children in long-term foster care; and what assessment has been made of the extent of delays in the process. [87218]

  Beverley Hughes
  British passports are issued to children only when parental consent is given. If an application for a child's passport is made by anyone other than the child's parents, the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) must establish either that the applicant has parental rights or that a person with parental rights has given consent. In most cases where a child is in foster care parental rights are not transferred to the foster parent. The UKPS therefore advises the local authority to make the application in such circumstances and give details of the care order or other court order which deals with the issue of parental rights. Applications in which this information is provided are not delayed.

  Prison Population
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the need to revise(a) short-term and (b) long-term predictions of growth in the prison population in light of the Criminal Justice Bill; upon what information such an assessment was made; what action his Department intends to take to meet changes in the growth of the prison population; and if he will make a statement. [84248]

  Hilary Benn
  We have not made final decisions about implementation of the measures in the Criminal Justice Bill, but on the basis of the modelling which has been undertaken to estimate the impact of the sentencing reforms and the cost of the Bill, we do not expect them to generate significant increases in the prison population. On current assumptions, the impact on the prison population of implementing the sentencing reforms would be broadly flat with a small reduction in places in late 2004 and early 2005, followed by a modest increase of up to 1,000 places between mid-2006 and early 2009, levelling out once the reforms have bedded in.

  The Review of Correctional Services is addressing a wide range of questions regarding effectiveness and value for money and is developing a strategy for managing prison population pressures and containing its future growth. The impact of proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill are being considered in the context of the review. The prison population projections will be revised when firm implementation dates for new policy initiatives have been set. The prison service will then be in a position to work up plans for delivering the capacity needed to meet the revised projections.
  752W

  Prison Visits
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has concluded his review of the guidance PSO 440, relating to visits by close relatives to prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [86859]

  Hilary Benn
  It is assumed that the hon. member is referring to Prison Service Order (PSO) 4400 and not 440 as set out in the question. The Prison Service is reviewing its child protection measures as set out in PSO 4400 as part of an overall long-term review of the management of dangerous offenders. A new Prison Service Instruction on public protection is likely to be complete in late summer 2003. There are no plans to abandon the policy disallowing visits to child sex offenders by children other than close relatives.

  Prisoner Status
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if UK citizens, regardless of domicile within the UK, have the same status and rights when held in prisons located in England; [83581]

  (2) what the status is of Scottish domicile prisoners held in prisons in England. [83582]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 28 November 2002, Official Report, column 428W.

  Prisoners (Hospital Treatment)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison inmates have been taken to(a) Chorley Hospital and (b) Preston Hospital for treatment in the last 12 months. [87026]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is not held centrally and I will therefore write to my hon. Friend.

  Race Discrimination
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many race discrimination cases against the Home Office have been received in the last three years. [86722]

  Beverley Hughes
  Details of race discrimination claims brought against the Home Office are not maintained centrally. However, the Treasury Solicitor's Department maintains a record of claims against the Home Office in which it is involved. It is not likely that there is a significant number of such cases in which the Treasury Solicitor's Department is not involved, and therefore the statistics from that office represent the most accurate estimate of claims against the Home Office. The table shows the number of race discrimination cases brought against the Home Office, including Her Majesty's Prison Service and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, in the last three years, in which there was Treasury Solicitor's Department involvement:

  Year

  Number of race discrimination cases

  2000

  38

  2001

  28

  20021

  27

  1Up to and including 10 December 2002

  Marsham Street Building (Redundant Concrete)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration was given to requiring redundant concrete from the former Department of Environment building in Marsham Street to be transported to Dagenham by water. [85843]

  Beverley Hughes
  Arrangements for removal of redundant concrete from the former Department of Environment building in Marsham Street are the responsibility of the contractor, Annes Gate Property Plc (AGP), dealing with the demolition and then, on this site, construction of the new Home Office headquarters building. AGP, whose arrangements were approved under the planning permission given by Westminster city council, have commented that the current waste disposal routing via the road network, instead of by barge, is more environmentally compatible. The waste is loaded into the transport vehicles once only and is then transported to the recycling centre approximately six miles from the site. This procedure is much less complicated and involves much less loading and reloading of waste than transportation by water. Moreover, currently there are no recycling centres with the capacity that AGP require situated along the river.

  Community Cohesion
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reduce the extent of segregation between richer and poorer communities within UK cities. [87007]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office plays a key role in the delivery of the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy. One of the key long term aims of the strategy is to narrow the gap between the most deprived areas and the rest of the country. The Home Office intends to meet this aim through the activities and programmes it is putting in place to meet its own floor target to:"reduce crime and the fear of crime; improve performance overall, including by reducing the gap between the highest Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership areas and the best comparable areas; and reduce:

  —vehicle crime by 30 per cent from 1998–99 to 2004

  —domestic burglary by 25 per cent from 1998–99 to 2005

  —robbery in the 10 Street Crime Initiative areas by 14 per cent from 1999–2000 to 2005; and maintain that level".

  The Community Cohesion Unit (CCU) and Race Equality Unit in the Home Office work closely with the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (NRU) and the Urban Policy Unit on community cohesion and faith issues. For example, the CCU and NRU are jointly funding a two year Community Cohesion Pathfinders programme launched by myself in October. The programme will target 15 local authority areas—providing funding for the local authority, voluntary and community sector and (through the community champions scheme) for individuals in the locality. Bids are due in January.

  The Home Office is developing an action plan to put in place recommendations made in a Social Exclusion Unit report on ex-offenders published in July.
  754W

  Visa Regime (Slovakia)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to lift the visa requirement for visitors from Slovakia in advance of EU accession. [87315]

  Beverley Hughes
  Visa regimes are maintained only where they contribute to effective immigration control. The visa regime has proved effective in reducing the numbers of inadmissible passengers travelling to the UK from Slovakia. Following Slovakia's accession to the EU in 2004, all categories of Slovak nationals will enjoy rights of free movement and will not require a visa to come to the UK. In the meantime, the visa regime on Slovak nationals, as with all visa regimes, will be kept under review and will be lifted when we consider that the threat to our immigration control is at an acceptable level.

  Woodhill Prison
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding his Department provided to Woodhill Prison in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 1999–2000 to ensure prison health services meet the targets set jointly with Milton Keynes PCT in their health action plan. [86969]

  Hilary Benn
  Funding for health services was not separately identified within the overall budget allocated to Woodhill prison in the years in question.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Al-Qaeda
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on links between the Al-Qaeda terrorist group and representatives of the Iraqi regime. [87587]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 10 December, 2002,Official Report, column 143. We believe that there are Al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq. We do not know their links to the Iraqi regime. Obviously in the circumstances it is difficult to establish this issue with clarity.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the(a) countries of origin and (b) background of the alleged Al-Qaeda terrorists who carried out the terrorist attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001. [87588]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The terrorists who carried out the 11 September attacks were from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Lebanon. They were all male, ranged in ages from 20 to 33, and came from a variety of social backgrounds. Of the 19, the majority had links with Al-Qaeda. A senior Bin Laden associate claimed to have trained some of the hijackers in Afghanistan.
  755W

  Arms Control and Disarmament Experts
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Arabic-speaking arms control and disarmament experts he has(a) on his staff and (b) on secondment to his Department. [87562]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is one Arabic speaking official currently working in the arms control and disarmament field in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is not a secondee.

  Border Guarantee Agreements
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what commitments the UK has made to the protection of the Belize state border; what level of co-operation there is between UK and local security forces; and what discussions have taken place with Belizian authorities regarding border protection. [87370]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our commitment to Belize is to consult internationally in the event of a threat to Belize's security and to play an appropriate part in any response. This has been the UK's position since the withdrawal of the British garrison from Belize in 1994. We have a close relationship with the Belize Defence Force. The Ministry of Defence maintains an important jungle training school in Belize. The Governments of Belize and Guatemala are working closely under the auspices of the Organisation of America States (OAS) both to settle their long-standing territorial dispute and to agree on measures to build confidence on the border. We strongly support the OAS process.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which countries the UK has a border guarantee agreement; what proposals there are to extend these treaties; and what commitments the Government have made to the preservation of democracy in those countries. [87371]

  Mr. Straw
  127 bilateral treaties have been identified which refer to boundaries or borders to which the United Kingdom is or has been a party, concluded with 30 separate bilateral partners. Any obligation to guarantee an international border could only be determined by reference to each individual treaty.

  We are not aware of any impending treaties containing this provision.

  The United Kingdom has an historical and abiding interest in the maintenance of internationally-recognised and agreed borders, and is committed to the promotion of democracy and international stability.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many legislative measures have been enacted in the UK to implement European Union legislation in each year since 1992. [86478]

  Mr. MacShane
  It would entail disproportionate cost to research and compile the number of legislative measures enacted each year in the UK directly implementing EC legislation.
  756W
  The picture is complicated. Some EC measures are directly applicable in the member states. Others require incorporation into national law. This is sometimes done by legislation, but on other occasions by administrative means. In yet other situations, domestic legislation which is being amended for other purposes, may also incorporate changes to reflect EU directives. This makes it extremely difficult to determine how many legislative measures have been introduced in the UK as a result of EC measures.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held on 9th December; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [86925]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on December 9 and 10. Conclusions were agreed by consensus and no formal votes were taken.

  General Affairs Session

  Progress of work in other Council Configurations

  The Council took stock of proceedings in other Council settings on the basis of the customary Presidency report. Regarding Justice and Home Affairs, particular attention was drawn to the Council's approval on 28 and 29 November of four negotiating mandates on readmission agreements with Albania, Algeria, China and Turkey and the EU Plan for Return to Afghanistan. The ECOFIN Council's approval of the 2003 draft budget was also highlighted.

  Preparation for the European Council in Copenhagen Enlargement
  The Council discussed the way forward for concluding accession negotiations with the candidate countries at the Copenhagen European Council on 12 and 13 December. The Presidency presented the results of informal consultations with the candidate countries, which, aided by the Commission, had led to `packages' being put together for each country. The Council decided that negotiating issues concerning the global amount (including the financial consequences of the agricultural quota proposals) as well as the question of direct income support in agriculture, be submitted to the European Council in Copenhagen, with a view to finalising the Union position. Solutions proposed by the Presidency on all other matters were accepted by the Council. Member states considered the Presidency's offer extremely generous and noted that the Council could go no further.

  Use of languages in an enlarged Union
  The Council noted a Presidency report on the use of languages in the Council, in the context of an enlarged Union. The Council agreed that the report would be forwarded to the European Council in Copenhagen and that work would continue on the basis of the conclusions set out by the Presidency in the report.
  Annotated draft agenda of the European Council
  The European Council will focus on two items: enlargement (the completion of the first stage of the enlargement process and the conclusion of negotiations with ten candidate countries: the adoption of an enhanced accession strategy for Bulgaria and Romania including revised roadmaps and increased pre-accession assistance; and the next steps concerning Turkey's candidature); and the functioning of the Council in view of enlargement (with a discussion on the initial report by the Danish Presidency on the Presidency of the Council).
  Kaliningrad
  The Council adopted conclusions on Kaliningrad, as a follow-up to the EU/Russia Summit of 11 November 2002. The Council reiterated its commitment to adopting necessary steps to implement the new arrangement on the Facilitated Transit Document (FTD) and the Facilitated Rail Transit Document (FRTD) before the signature of the Accession Treaty. This will be decided and developed in close consultation with Lithuania. The EU stands ready to provide financial assistance to Lithuania to cover additional costs of implementing the measures.
  Turkey
  Ministers discussed the next steps of Turkey's candidature for membership over dinner, noting the new government's orientation and reform agenda, taking into account the Copenhagen criteria.
  Annual operational programme of Council activities
  The Council discussed its draft operation programme for 2003, submitted jointly by the forthcoming Greek and Italian presidencies and contributed to by the Commission and European Parliament. The programme comes as a result of measures decided at the Seville European Council to improving the efficient functioning of the Council. Member states broadly welcomed the new initiative which identifies the following priority areas: enlargement and reform; reinvigorating Europe's economy; social cohesion while promoting sustainable development; and developing the European areas of freedom, security and justice.
  Inter-Institutional Agreement on better regulation
  The Council noted the Presidency's report on the state of negotiations between the Council, Commission and European Parliament, on an Inter-Institutional Agreement to improve the quality of Community legislation. (Issues addressed include improved coordination of the legislative processes, better programming regarding co-decision, greater transparency and publicity of work and the exploration of alternative instruments such as co-regulation and self-regulation by economic operators, social partners, NGOs and European associations.)
  So far, a broad common approach on the main parts of the Agreement has emerged. Work will continue at a technical level on other areas. The Greek presidency has been tasked with pursuing negotiations with a view to concluding the Agreement as soon as possible.
  External Relations Session Middle East
  SG/HR Solana and Commissioner Patten briefed the Council on the current Middle East situation in advance of ministerial discussion at both the Copenhagen European Council and the 'Quartet' meeting in Washington on 20 December.
  Western Balkans Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  The Council welcomed recent progress on the draft Constitutional Charter and looked forward to early parliamentary approval. It registered concern at the outcome of the Serbian Presidential elections on 8 December and requested that the matter be resolved by all parties, constitutionally, transparently and democratically, safeguarding institutional stability and continued reform.
  FRY/Kosovo
  The Council welcomed the extension of UNMIK's direct administrative authority to Northern Mitrovica and commended the UN's Special Representative, Michael Steiner, and the Belgrade authorities for their efforts in achieving this encouraging result.
  Arms sales
  The Council reiterated its grave concern regarding arms sales that breached UN sanctions. It requested speedy and effective investigation into these matters and that responsible parties be brought to account. The Council reaffirmed the crucial importance it attaches to maintaining civilian control of military operations and urged all countries concerned to implement decisive legal and administrative measures to this effect.
  London conference on organised crime
  The Council welcomed the successful conference of 25 November, fully supported the priority actions identified by the conference and called for urgent implementation of the commitments subscribed to. The Council will draw on the Stabilisation and Association Process review mechanism and a wide range of regional initiatives to follow up on its commitments.
  Afghanistan
  Following discussion and briefing on the Petersberg conference, the Council adopted conclusions. These reiterated the Council's strong commitment to contributing to the full implementation of the Bonn Agreement and outlined existing challenges. Security continues to be a priority concern; the Council commended the 'Decree on the National Army' issued by the Afghan Transitional Authority (ATA). It also welcomed the declaration 'Rebuilding Peace in Afghanistan' adopted at the Petersberg conference on 2 December, and reiterated the importance of democratic values, pluralism and respect for human rights. It restated its commitment to working with other international bodies to eliminate the opium trade.
  Migration and development
  Commissioner Patten presented the Commission's communication on integrating migration issues in the EU's external relations policies, as a follow-up to the Seville European Council decisions. The

  759W
  Communication consists of an analysis of migration and development issues generally, and a report on the effectiveness of financial resources available at Community level. The Commission proposed that migration issues should be more adequately integrated into existing external relations policy and that supplementary financial effort should be made to accommodate this. COREPER has been tasked to examine the Communication and prepare a substantive debate for the Council early next year.
  EU/Africa relations
  Ministers discussed EU/Africa relations and, in particular, preparations for the next EU/Africa Summit due to take place in Spring 2003, over dinner. The troika will visit Africa to discuss further.
  Cyprus
  Ministers assessed the current state of play in negotiations on the UN Secretary General's settlement plan for Cyprus.
  ESDP
  The Council discussed EU/Nato relations and mandated SG/HR Solana to forward to NATO the text on the implementation of the Nice provisions, agreed at the Brussels European Council on 24 and 25 October. The Council also noted a draft Presidency report.
  Greenland: fisheries
  The Council heard a Commission presentation on the mid-term review of the fisheries protocol between the EU and Greenland. The Council noted that a decision on the proposals to adjust the protocol in the short term and to secure political commitment between the EU, Greenland and Denmark must be reached by the end of February 2003.
  AOB: WHO
  The Belgian delegation informed the Council of Dr. Peter Piot's (current Executive Director of UN AIDS programme) candidature for the position of Director General of the World Health Organisation.
  Items approved without debate EUPM
  The Council noted that in less than a month the EU Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina will undertake its first crisis management operation under ESDP and welcomed the double-hatting of the High Representative as EU Special Representative and his role in the EUPM chain of command. The UN Security Council has welcomed EUPM's succession to the UN's International Police Task Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  European Union Special Representatives
  The Council extended the mandates of the five existing special representatives in the Middle East, African Great Lakes, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Afghanistan and Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, until June 2003.
  Cuba: 12th evaluation of common position
  The Council acknowledged the continuation of an open and constructive dialogue with Cuba on all issues of common interest. The Council noted that the Cuban
  760W
  Government had made no significant steps towards meeting the aims of the Common Position since the previous evaluation. EU policy objectives toward Cuba will remain encouraging Cuba's transition to a pluralistic and democratic system, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, lasting economic recovery and an improvement in the living standards of the population. The Council also strongly urged the Cuban Government to ratify the UN Covenants on Political and Civil Rights, and those on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
  Colombia
  The Council welcomed President Uribe's efforts to reform his country's institutions and to develop a fully functioning democratic state throughout Colombia, based on respect for human rights and the welfare and safety of all its citizens. The Council reiterated its support for seeking a negotiated solution to the conflict in Colombia and expressed the EU's readiness to assist in these areas. It expressed deep concern at the deterioration of human rights in the country and urged the Colombian Government to take effective action against impunity and collusion.
  Restrictive measures against Somalia
  The Council adopted a Common Position concerning restrictive measures against Somalia, prohibiting the sale or supply of arms and related material to Somalia by the member states. Technical, financial or other advice related to military activity is also prohibited.
  Mano River Union Region
  The Council noted that despite significant recent progress towards peace, democracy and reconciliation in Sierra Leone, instability in the sub-region is still of grave concern. The current situation in Liberia threatens the stability of the sub-region.
  The Council welcomes the regional peace process within the Mano River Union framework, facilitated by Morocco, but regrets that progress achieved so far is limited. The Council also welcomes the strengthening of the EU's political dialogue with the countries of the Mano River Union, through the appointment of its Special Representative in 2001. The EU is one of the key development partners for the region. Its main objective in the region is to contribute strategically to peace, security and stability as preconditions for sustainable development.
  Ukraine—common strategy
  The Council approved a report on the implementation of the Common Strategy on Ukraine, adopted in December 1999. The report addresses the main objectives of the EU's policy toward Ukraine as set out in the Common Strategy.
  European Union's activities in the Fight against terrorism
  The Council took stock of a Presidency report on the EU's anti-terrorism activities and directed its competent bodies to bring forward work on the report's recommendations. The main areas covered include: enhancing justice, security and protection of EU citizens; the fight against the financing of terrorism; and the EU's external action in the fight against terrorism.
  ELI-Canada Summit
  The Council took stock of preparations for the Summit to be held on 19 December, in Ottawa.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what powers the Gibraltar Government has to(a) regulate financial services, with specific reference to pensions and (b) initiate referenda. [86850]

  Mr. MacShane
  In relation to financial services, the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission, established by the Financial Services Commission Ordinance of 1989, is charged with the responsibility of supervising institutions carrying out financial business in or from within Gibraltar. The Commission is appointed by the Governor with the approval of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

  Providing the Government of Gibraltar is acting consistent with the Gibraltar Constitution, they are able to initiate local referenda if they so choose. We have made clear that Her Majesty's Government would, in consultation with the Government of Gibraltar, expect to oversee any referendum on a change in sovereignty, since any such change could trigger primary legislation in the UK.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those responsibilities of HM Government and the Crown to Gibraltar which are not devolved to the Gibraltar Government. [86852]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Despatch to the Gibraltar Constitution Order of May 1969, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, sets out responsibilities which are devolved to the Government of Gibraltar.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which EC laws and regulations, other than those excluded by the 1972 Act of Accession, do not apply to Gibraltar. [87038]

  Mr. MacShane
  Other than those areas of Community policy from which Gibraltar is excluded by virtue of the UK's Act of Accession, EMU does not apply, since the UK is not a member. Gibraltar airport is suspended from the scope of the following measures:

  Regulation 87/602: 1st Package—Market Access;

  Directive 89/463: Scheduled Inter-Regional Air Services;

  Regulation 2343/90: 2nd Package—Market Access;

  Regulation 294/91: Operation of Air Cargo Services between Member States;

  Regulation 2408/92: 3rd Package—Market Access;

  Regulation 95/93: Slots;

  Directive 96/67: Access to Ground Handling Market;

  Regulation 925/99: Hushkits; and

  Protocol of accession of the European Community to the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL).

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on pension regulation in Gibraltar. [86851]
  762W
  Mr. MacShane
  The Gibraltar Commissioner for Income Tax is responsible for the regulation of pension schemes. The Financial Services Commission supervises businesses carrying out investment and asset management and administration.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia regarding(a) the imprisonment of Lesley McCulloch and (b) human rights in Aceh province. [87430]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have raised Lesley McCulloch's case on a number of occasions and at a high level with the Indonesian authorities; most recently on 2 December when my noble Friend the Baroness Amos raised concerns about the delay in the court proceedings with the Indonesian Charge d'Afaires in London.

  We welcome the recent signing of a peace agreement between the Government of Indonesia and Free Aceh Movement (GAM) on 9 December. We urge both sides to implement all terms of the agreement and hope this will lead to a lasting peace in Aceh. Separately, we continue to raise the issue of human rights with the Indonesian Government particularly the accountability of security forces for committing human rights abuses.

  Iraq
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who made the decision that the United States should be(a) in charge of the translation and distribution of and (b) given permission to edit the Iraqi dossier to the United Nations of its weapons of mass destruction capacity. [87414]

  Mr. MacShane
  The President of the UN Security Council decided that the Iraqi Declaration should first be given to members of the Security Council with the expertise to assess the risks of proliferation: China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. His decision followed consultations with all other members of the Security Council.

  It is open to these five states to pass on any concerns they have about the risks of proliferation to UNMOVIC and the IAEA. But UNMOVIC and the IAEA alone will judge what material needs to be excised before it distributes the Declaration.

  UNMOVIC will distribute the version of the Declaration that will be given to all members of Security Council. And UNMOVIC, not the United States, is in charge of translation of the Declaration.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries will receive an unedited version of the Iraqi dossier of its weapons of mass destruction. [87415]

  Mr. MacShane
  As states with the expertise to assess the risks of proliferation, China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States have received unedited versions of the Iraqi Declaration. UNMOVIC and the IAEA will decide
  763W
  what, if any, parts of the Declaration need to be excised before it distributes the report to all members of the UN Security Council.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the names of the United Kingdom-based and registered companies named as suppliers of equipment to Iraqi military industries, as listed in the Iraqi submission made to the United Nations Security Council on its military programmes; and if he will list the number of companies listed as suppliers to Iraq, broken down by country. [87497]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The task of analysing the Iraqi declaration is continuing. It would be premature to make any substantive comment on its contents at this stage.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the nonpermanent member states on the United Nations Security Council have not been provided with the full text of the Iraqi declaration on its programme of military equipment and infrastructure submitted pursuant to UNSC resolution 1441. [87582]

  Mr. MacShane
  The President of the UN Security Council decided that the Iraqi Declaration should first be given to members of the Security Council with the expertise to assess the risks of proliferation: China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. His decision followed consultations with all other members of the Security Council.

  UNMOVIC and the IAEA will judge what material needs to be excised before it distributes the declaration to all Security Council members.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [87355]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The information is as follows:
  Foreign Secretary

  January 2000 (Robin Cook)

  6 Lisbon

  16 Chevening House, Kent (Dinner)

  18–20 Jordan and Egypt

  24 General Affairs Council, Brussels

  26 International Forum on the Holocaust, Stockholm

  27 Chevening House, Kent (meeting with German Foreign Minister and others)

  28 Burns Supper, Boldon

  January 2001 (Robin Cook)

  11 Brussels and Paris

  22 General Affairs Council, Brussels

  764W

  January 2002 (Jack Straw)

  20–23 Paris, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda and DRC

  28 General Affairs Council, Brussels

  31 Washington

  Minister for Europe

  January 2000 (Keith Vaz)

  14 British/French Colloque, Hanbury Manor, Herts

  16–17 Rome

  19–20 Athens

  22 Paris 'Your Future of Europe Student Seminar'

  24 General Affairs Council, Brussels

  25 Brussels (NATO)

  January 2001 (Keith Vaz)

  22 General Affairs Council, Brussels

  24 Prague

  January 2002 (Peter Hain)

  8–9 Ljubljana

  28–29 General Affairs Council, Brussels

  Minister of State

  January 2000 (Peter Hain)

  9–14 Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Ghana

  24–25 New York

  28–31 South Africa

  January 2001 (Peter Hain/Brian Wilson)

  1–9 South Africa (Peter Hain)

  January 2002 (Baroness Symons)

  11 South Yorkshire

  14–16 Santa Monica

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  January 2000 (John Battle)

  None

  January 2001 (John Battle)

  18 Athens

  24–30 Mexico

  January 2002 (Ben Bradshaw)

  14–17 Israel and Palestinian Authority

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  January 2000 (Baroness Scotland)

  None

  January 2001 (Baroness Scotland)

  15–16 Bradford

  19 Oxford

  22–31 British Antarctic Territory

  January 2002 (Baroness Amos)

  7–9 Kenya and Tanzania

  28–29 New York

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  (new post created in June 2001)

  January 2002 (Denis MacShane)

  1–6 Switzerland

  25–28 Japan.

  Mr. Ian Hook
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with the Israeli authorities concerning the legality of the killing of Mr. Ian Hook; and if he will make a statement; [87110]
  765W
  (2) what steps the Government have taken to establish the circumstances of the killing of Mr. Ian Hook; and if he will make a statement on the results of these inquiries. [87111]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, on 22 November 2002. Mr. Netanyahu promised an immediate investigation and gave an undertaking to share the results as soon as he had them. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the matter with the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Sharon, on 29 November 2002. I also raised it with the Israeli Ambassador, Mr. Shtauber, on 4 and 5 December 2002. There has also been frequent contact between our embassy in Tel Aviv and the Israeli authorities, and our Chargé d'Affaires discussed the IDF inquiry with a senior IDF officer on 3 December 2002, at the IDF's request.

  We have made our concerns clear at the highest levels, and received assurances that the IDF inquiry would be rigorous and comprehensive.

  We are also in touch with the UN about the investigation they are carrying out into Mr. Hook's death.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken by the Government to assist the UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo to identify the ultimate owners and beneficiaries of Tremalt Ltd. [87611]

  Mr. Straw
  The UN Panel of Expert's mandate expired on 18 October 2002. Discussions are under way at the UN on how to renew its mandate. The UK will maintain a dialogue with the Panel, once its mandate is renewed. We will continue to comment on information the Panel wishes to discuss with the UK, as requested.

  Overseas Territories
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under whose direction Governors of overseas territories act on(a) matters devolved to overseas legislation and (b) other matters. [87039]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Governors of overseas territories act under the direction of the Foreign Secretary. The extent to which the Foreign Secretary may instruct a Governor as to the exercise of his functions depends on the terms of the Constitution and legislation in force in each territory.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what his policy is on the representation of(a) overseas territories outside Europe and (b) crown dependencies in the European Parliament; [87040]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the distinction between Gibraltar and other overseas territories and the crown dependencies in respect of their European parliamentary representation. [87041]
  766W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Gibraltar is the only UK overseas territory inside the European Union. Following a 1999 European Court of Human Rights judgment, the UK is required to ensure that Gibraltarians can vote in European Parliament elections. The Government introduced the European Parliament (Representation) Bill in November 2002 in order to provide for Gibraltar's enfranchisement in time for the 2004 European Parliamentary elections.

  The other overseas territories and the crown dependencies are not part of the European Union. They have their own elected governments and no direct representation in the European Parliament. Their constituents are free to raise with UK MEPs any concerns they may have with regard to EU legislation or other EU matters, and their governments are free to raise with HMG any such concerns they may have.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for his Department(a) those Comprehensive Spending Review 1998 targets that were outstanding at the time of the statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review 2002, (b) progress on such targets since then and (c) the expected date when targets not yet achieved will be met. [87695]

  Mr. MacShane
  Progress against the FCO's targets agreed under the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR98) for the period 1999–2002 was reported in Appendix K of the FCO's 2002 Departmental Report, which was published in June 2002, and is available on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk). CSR98 targets were superseded by targets agreed under the 2000 Spending Review (SR2000) for the period 2001–04. SR2000 targets and the new targets agreed under the 2002 Spending Review (SR2002) for the period 2003–06 are also available on the FCO website.

  Surface-to-air Missiles
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with allies about dealing with the proliferation of surface-to-air missiles; and what actions he proposes to take. [87845]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The states participating in the Wassenaar Arrangement, including the United Kingdom, recognising the special danger posed by such weapons, adopted specific export control guidelines for Man-Portable Air Defence Systems in December 2000.

  All military listed arms exports are strictly licensed under the EU Consolidated Code of Conduct.

  The Government continue to work with other parties to strengthen regulation of the arms trade and stop illegal proliferation, particularly where there is a danger that arms might leak to terrorists.

  Syria
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he plans to have with the President of Syria. [86899]
  767W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We will discuss the full range of bilateral and international issues with President Bashar al-Assad including reform, human rights, Iraq, the Middle East Peace Process and the fight against terrorism.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether he will discuss support for terrorist organisations with the President of Syria during his forthcoming visit to the UK; [87641]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the reasons for the visit of the President of Syria to the UK; [87643]

  (3) whether he will discuss the fate of Israeli missing servicemen with President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria during his forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [87642]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  President Bashar Al-Assad is visiting the United Kingdom, at the invitation of Her Majesty's Government, as a follow-up to the Prime Minister's visit to Syria in October 2001. Discussions during the visit will cover the full range of bilateral and international issues, including reform, human rights, Iraq, the Middle East Peace Process and the fight against terrorism, including terrorist organisations in Syria and the fate of missing Israeli servicemen.

  UN Resolutions
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which United Nations(a) Security Council resolutions and (b) General Assembly resolutions the United Kingdom has voted on in the current session; how the United Kingdom voted in each case; what steps his Department takes to maximise media coverage of United Nations resolutions and debates; and if he will make it his policy to make a written statement in the Official Report on the United Kingdom voting record at the United Nations. [87586]

  Mr. MacShane
  Voting records of all resolutions of the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly since 1983 can be accessed via the internet at http://unbisnet.un.org.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the UK Mission to the United Nations in New York and other British embassies and high commissions frequently issue press releases and have information on their websites which publicise UN activities.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements there will be for pensioners to get documents verified for the purposes of claiming benefits without posting them to regional Pension Service centres. [86883]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: We expect that the vast majority of pensioners will continue to prefer to deal with The Pension Service by
  768W
  post as they do now. However where a pensioner requires it we expect to be able to verify documents via the local service.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure that women will continue to receive their benefits payment independent of men when the new payment method for benefits is introduced. [87103]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The Department for Work and Pensions is providing customers with information (including letters and leaflets) which clearly sets out the account options as part of the move to payment directly into bank accounts. All customers including women will have the option to open an account in their name only if they want independent access to their benefit payments.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions his Department has had with(a) pensioner groups and (b) poverty groups as part of the project to change payment systems from one of benefit books to direct bank account payments. [87104]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: Special interest groups including those that represent pensioner and poverty groups have been involved throughout the development of the move to direct payment. Regular meetings are held with these groups to discuss progress. The most recent meeting was held on 28 November 2002.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research the Department has undertaken into the advantages of moving to paying benefits to bank accounts only; and if he will make a statement. [87107]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: Payment directly into accounts is a safe, convenient, more modern and efficient way to pay benefits and pensions. More people are already choosing to be paid this way. The Department conducted research of benefit recipients who were not already paid this way to provide an overview of their characteristics, experiences and attitudes. Some people indicated that they wanted to be able to continue to access their money from post office branches and also to be able to continue to collect it weekly. Both of these options will be available when this payment method becomes the normal way we pay benefits from April 2003.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) research and (b) risk assessment has been undertaken by the Department on the number of customers who do not have bank accounts in which to receive their benefits; and what contingency plans the Department has for those without bank accounts for the payment of benefits. [87108]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: Benefit customers are increasingly choosing direct payment as the way they want their benefit or pension paid. Research has shown that around 85 per cent. of benefit customers already have access to bank accounts. The introduction of universal banking services (which consist of two elements: access to a basic bank account and the post office card account) will open up a wider

  769W
  range of banking and financial services. We have always recognised that there will be a small group of people who we cannot pay directly into an account. We will develop an alternate method to pay this group of people.

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if his Department has received the figures from the Office for National Statistics on the take-up of income-related benefits for 2000–01; and when they will be published. [86735]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The National Statistics bulletin Updates, recently pre-announced a release date of March 2003 for the 2000–01 financial year estimates of take-up of income-related benefits. The Office for National Statistics have delivered to the Department research that will be incorporated in the production of these statistics. On evaluation of these research findings a precise date of release will be pre-announced in Updates.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the baseline data was on which his Department's target to reduce the number of children in low-income households by at least 25 per cent. by 2004 was based; and what progress has been made. [87163]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding reply 16 December 2002]: The target to reduce the number of children in low-income households by at least aquarter by 2004–05 is measured by the number of children below 60 per cent. of contemporary median income as reported in Households Below Average Income (HBAI) statistics. Baseline for the target is 1998–99 with 3.1 million children in low-income households before housing costs (BHC) and 4.2 million after housing costs (AHC). HBAI statistics show a fall of around 400,000 children between 1998–99 and 2000–01 (3.1 million to 2.7 million) BHC, and 300,000 (4.2 million to 3.9 million) AHC.

  The Public Service Agreement target technical note, available on the internet, contains full details of how the target will be monitored.

  Combined Pension Forecasts
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many combined pension forecasts have been issued in each month since his Department's current forecasting scheme came into operation. [87164]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The combined pension forecast service was piloted from October 1999, and is now operational. Throughout the pilots the Department has worked with employers and pension providers to ensure they can issue combined pension forecasts to their employees and pension scheme members. Now the service is operational, we are continuing to recruit employers and pension providers in order to build up the service so that is can be made available to as many people as possible. To date, 348 schemes have expressed an interest in using this voluntary service.
  770W
  The complete process from recruitment to the time the employer or pension scheme provider provides combined forecasts, can take around 12 to 18 months, and as the private sector partner issues the statement, precise issue dates are their responsibility.

  The Department has, however, worked in partnership with a number of providers to facilitate the issue of combined pension forecasts on the following dates:

  Year 2002

  Number of CPF's issued

  April

  14,602

  May

  88

  June

  467

  July

  10,049

  August

  —

  September

  6,380

  October

  2,600

  November

  —

  December

  7,500

  Total

  75,186

  EU Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the outcome was of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council held on 3 December; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including their voting record; and if he will make a statement. [87252]

  Malcolm Wicks
  This was a very busy Council with business split over two days. My right hon. Friend attended the Employment and Social Policy part, held on 3 December, accompanied by the Minister for Employment Relations and the Regions, Alan Johnson. The agenda covered a wide range of employment and social policy issues. Council agreed an orientation toward political agreement on a Regulation to replace Regulation 1408/71 which coordinates social security for people moving within the EU. The issues covered at this Council were sickness benefits, benefits for work injury and illness, and death grants. Work will continue on simplification of this regulation under the forthcoming Greek Presidency.

  The Council reached political agreement on a Regulation extending provisions of Regulation 1408/71 to nationals of third countries. This Regulation will be adopted at a future council.

  The Council also agreed to minor revisions to the objectives agreed at Nice in 2000 for the next round of National Action Plans on social inclusion.

  The Council agreed a number of Resolutions: on e-accessibility for disabled people, ahead of the European year for disabled people in 2003; on social inclusion through social dialogue; and on corporate social responsibility.

  This Council also produced Conclusions on gender mainstreaming within the Council and Council Conclusions on a series of indicators concerning violence against women.
  771W
  There were three substantive discussions at this Council. Council adopted a joint report with ECOFIN on the streamlining of the annual co-ordination of economic and employment policies after some discussion. The report is in line with the UK's desire to see reform of the employment processes to emphasise outcomes and ensure that all work is geared to achieving the Lisbon objectives.

  There was also an orientation debate on the Commission's proposed Directive on improving working conditions for temporary agency workers. Amongst other issues, the UK continued to argue for a longer derogation than the six weeks proposed in the Commission paper. The Greek Presidency will continue to seek a compromise on this dossier when they take over the Presidency next year.

  The Council agreed a Decision establishing a Tripartite Social Summit after discussion. This will be forwarded as a Report from the ESPHCA to the General Affairs and External Relations Council, and recommends continuing the current informal arrangements.

  The Council adopted joint conclusions with ECOFIN on the structural indicators for the 2003 Synthesis report.

  The Commission presented its draft of the Joint Employment Report at this Council. The draft was remitted to the Employment Committee for consideration.

  The Presidency announced that it would shortly be bringing forward a revised proposal for a Directive protecting workers from the risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields and waves.

  No votes were taken on any of these issues.

  Fairground Safety
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many fairground rides have been surveyed in each year since 1990: and by how many surveyors. [85727]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: The Health and Safety Executive does not hold this information. The industry, in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, is however developing a system that will be able to supply this information in the future.

  Guidance produced by the Health and Safety Executive in consultation with the industry "Fairgrounds and Amusements Parks, Guidance on Safe Practice", requires that every fairground ride, and any ancillary parts of the ride which may affect the safety of the ride are subject to thorough examination at least annually, or within any shorter period specified by the manufacturer or appointed inspection body.

  Once the inspection body that carried out the examination is satisfied with the safety of the ride, a Declaration of Operational Compliance, (DoC) is issued to the operator to allow him to continue to operate this fairground ride.
  772W
  The number of registered inspection bodies (excluding those registered to inspect coin operated children's rides) was 27 as of 4 December 2002. This information is available on the NAFLIC web page http://www.naflic.org.uk/adips-2002.htm. Further details can be obtained from NAFLIC, PO Box 752, Sunderland SR3 1XX. Tel/Fax 0191–5239498.

  Fraud
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many telephone calls were made to the National Benefit Fraud Hotline in(a) January, (b) February and (c) March in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001, and (iv) 2002. [86994]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: The information requested is in the table.

  Number of calls to the National Benefit Fraud Hotline

  Year

  January

  February

  March

  1999

  13,925

  13,798

  16,901

  2000

  14,272

  19,285

  23,118

  2001

  17,340

  18,191

  28,093

  2002

  18,621

  12,809

  15,013

  Source:

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline

  Health and Safety Executive
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Band 6 administrative staff have resigned from the North West Division office in Manchester since its relocation in January 2001. [84774]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The North West (Manchester) office relocated on 8 January 2001. There have been 17 Band 6 resignations (nine female and eight male) between 8 January 2001 and 30 November 2002.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what expenditure was made in 2001–02 on casual staff supplied by Reed Employment in the North West Division of the Health and Safety Executive. [84783]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Expenditure in 2001–02 on casual staff supplied by Reed Executive plc to NW Division was £56,337.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which division of the HSE is the largest employer of casual staff in the FO Division. [85059]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  HSE does not directly employ casual staff. Temporary vacancies in the administrative, typing and mail/messenger disciplines are filled by the use of employment agency staff under an HSE contract with Reed Executive.

  The East and South East division is currently the largest user of this service within the Field Operations Directorate of the HSE.

  New Deal
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of the
  773W
  New Deal starts in his Department and its agencies have resulted in sustained, unsubsidised employment; and if he will make a statement. [85970]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: This information is not available for all of the Department and its agencies. However, in the former Employment Service and Jobcentre Plus1, up to October 2002, 825 people have been taken on under the New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus. 302 (37 per cent.) of these people have gained permanent employment with Jobcentre Plus and 98 (12 per cent.) have left to take up employment elsewhere. A further 200 (24 per cent.) people are still employed in Jobcentre Plus on the New Deal programme.

  1 Jobcentre Plus was launched in April 2002. The Employment Service and Benefits Agency ceased to exist at the same time.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons received new deal photocards between May 1998 and October 2002; how many new deal participants were eligible to receive such cards during this period; what assessment he has made of the reasons for the difference in these figures; and if he will make a statement. [85973]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: On 6 November, 2002 we announced the extension of half price rail fares to up to 125,000 more people on three additional new deal programmes, making it cheaper for them to get to job interviews and cheaper to get to work in the first few months of employment.

  The new deal reduced rail fare scheme has been in existence in England and Wales since May 1998 and, to the end of August 20021, Jobcentre Plus has issued 127,254 photocards. During the period 24 May 1998 to 31 August 2002, a total of 1,038,623 new deal participants were eligible to use the card.

  The reduced rail fare scheme is brought to the attention of all new deal participants at the initial interview with their personal adviser. Where transport is not considered to be a barrier to the client finding work or training, they may not take up the offer. Jobcentre Plus is currently working to further increase awareness of the scheme through targeted publicity, and expect to see a marked increase in take-up as a result.

  1Latest available figures.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of those leaving the new deal for the long-term unemployed left the new deal for unsubsidised sustained jobs; and how many did not return to claim jobseeker's allowance within(a) 26 weeks and (b) one year. [85971]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 December 2002 ]: Up to the end of September 2002, 80,640 new deal 25 plus leavers had gained unsubsidised sustained jobs. Of these, 64,780 did not return to claim jobseeker's allowance within 26 weeks, and 57,090 had not reclaimed the benefit within one year after leaving the new deal.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database
  774W

  Pensioners
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase the take-up rate of means-tested provision for pensioners. [86283]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have introduced a range of initiatives designed to encourage pensioners to take up their entitlements. For the minimum income guarantee (MIG) we have undertaken a national advertising campaign, which resulted in almost 140,000 successful claims, with an average gain of £20 per week. We have also reduced the MIG claim form from 40 to 10 pages, introduced a MIG specific leaflet, and we are identifying potential beneficiaries through key events, such as claiming state pension.

  A key priority, for both Government and The Pension Service is the successful take-up of the new pension credit, which will enhance and replace the MIG. It has been specifically designed to be easy for pensioners to claim and to be less intrusive. The weekly means test will be abolished for the over-65s and be replaced by a statement of their circumstances every 5 years. Capital rules will be relaxed and the upper capital limit abolished.

  Our take-up plan for pension credit is extensive and makes use of a range of channels. We will transfer existing MIG recipients to pension credit, ready for payments to be made from October 2003; write to all pensioners not already receiving MIG by June 2004 to alert them to possible pension credit entitlement, supported by a national publicity campaign; work with local partners to help support the communications to pensioners, and tailor marketing and communications activity accordingly.

  The Pension Service pension centres are backed up by local services delivered in partnership with local authorities and voluntary sector organisations provided in locations accessible to pensioners. There will be appointment surgeries and, in time, drop-in surgeries to meet pensioners in places where they visit.

  Outreach activity will be an important part of local service work. Staff will be meeting people in partner and other locations accessible to customers offering general advice and guidance and taking part in benefit take-up initiatives.

  We are planning to introduce a network of Internet access points, telephone points and hard copy information (displaying leaflets, posters, claim forms and other materials) points based in Government and partner locations: and a benefits information service for partners, care workers, volunteers etc. to raise awareness of The Pension Service, pensioner entitlements and how to apply for them.

  We have also set up the Partnerships Against Poverty group, and are undertaking negotiations with partners at a national level to agree the scope for partnership working.

  All of the above demonstrate the importance that my Department attaches to encouraging pensioners to take up their entitlements.
  775W

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the number of stages in the process of setting up a Post Office customer card account. [87106]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The Department for Work and Pensions will be writing to customers over the next two years when it is their turn to change to Direct Payment into an account. Customers will be provided with information (including letters and leaflets) which clearly sets out the different types of accounts available, so that they can choose the account which best meets their needs and circumstances.

  Customers who wish to open a post office card account will need to contact the Department to discuss their account options with an adviser. They will then be issued with a personal invitation document. This document should then be taken to a post office branch where the customer will be given a post office card account application form to complete.

  Overall the process of applying for a post office card account is straightforward and no more onerous than that of applying for a basic (or other) bank account.

  SERPS
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 21 November, to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb),Official Report, column 282W, on SERPS, if he will place examples of (a) the original letter, (b) the follow-up estimate letter and (c) the most recent letter in the Library. [86688]

  Mr. McCartney
  The original letter and the follow up estimate were placed in the Library on 11 March 2002. The most recent letter will be placed in the Library after it has been approved by the Secretary of State.

  Social Security Fraud Act
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have had their benefit reduced because they have been convicted of benefit fraud for a second time under the terms of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001. [86734]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The 'two-strikes' provision of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 came into force from 1 April 2002. The provision applies to people who are convicted of benefit fraud on two separate occasions after 1 April 2002; it cannot be applied retrospectively. No individuals so far have had their benefit reduced under this provision.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his oral statement of 25 November,Official Report, column 12, on stakeholder pensions, if he

  Caseload and expenditure on winter fuel payments

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Expenditure on WFPs (£ million)

  191

  194

  759

  11,749

  1,692

  1,710

  Number of WFP recipients

  9,759,000

  9,953,000

  10,084,000

  11,123,000

  11,202,000

  11,322,000

  1Includes £94 million retrospective payments

  776W
  will set out the basis for his estimate that more than one million people who did not have a pension 18 months ago have one now. [84484]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: There has been an increase in the number of people who save for their retirement through private pensions since the introduction of stakeholder pensions. Although not all stakeholder pension sales will be to new pension savers, it is widely acknowledged that stakeholder pensions have had a beneficial effect on the provision of pensions more generally. For example, as an alternative to designating all stakeholder pension scheme employers have broadened access to their occupational pension schemes to the whole of the workforce, or have opened group personal pension schemes to which they contribute. What is clear is that for a very large number of people stakeholder pensions have provided a route into pension provision that they had never had before.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr.Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how many eligible people have not received backdated winter fuel payments for the first three years of the scheme, and what the value was of such payments. [87598]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: According to our estimate around 1.9 million people could have been eligible for backdated payments for the first three years of the scheme and about 1.2 million people have now been paid. There is no cut off dates for these retrospective payments.

  It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the numbers who have not claimed because the estimate of those newly eligible was based on sample data. It is up to the individual, where a claim is necessary, to decide whether or not to make that claim.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost of the winter fuel payments has been in each year since they were established, including(a) payments made on time, (b) backdated payments and (c) administration costs; and what the full value is of potential future payments to eligible recipients who have not yet applied for the benefit, but who are still free to do so. [86738]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is given in the table.

  The Department now accounts for its administration and benefit expenditure by Strategic Objective, as set out in its Public Service Agreements (PSA), and by individual Requests for Resources (RfRs) as set out in the Departmental Estimates and Accounts.

  It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the value of unclaimed Winter Fuel Payments. It is up to an individual, where a claim is necessary, to decide whether or not to make that claim.
  777W
  Notes:

  All figures are for Great Britain.

  Costs are in cash terms.

  Expenditure figures prior to 2001–02 are from the published Social Fund Account and from 2001–02 are DWP's latest published forecast. Caseload figures prior to 2001–02 are based on estimates from administrative data and from 2001–02 are DWP's latest published forecast.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how many people became newly entitled for the(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 winter fuel payment; who needed to make a claim, but failed to do so before the cut-off dates; and what the value was of such payments. [87599]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: We estimate that around 1.5 million people became entitled to winter fuel payments in 2000–01 for the first time, as a result of a change in the rules in 2000. So far, about one million have been paid. Additionally, for the winter of 2000–01, we estimated that a further 500,000 people could have been newly entitled as a result attaining age 60 and satisfying the other entitlement conditions.

  Similarly for the winter of 2001–02, we estimated that some 500,000 people could have been newly entitled as a result of attaining age 60 and satisfying the other entitlement conditions. Around half of these were paid automatically. Some 245,000 claim forms were received by end of March 2002, although some of these would have been from people entitled to automatic payments. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not to claim.

  In 2000–01, expenditure on winter fuel payments was £1,749 million and in 2001–02, it was £1,692 million.

  Work-related Ill Health
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with other Ministers to develop a rehabilitation strategy to tackle work-related ill health in order to reduce the number on invalidity benefit. [85705]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Improved vocational rehabilitation services are a key element of our strategy for enabling people with health problems and disabilities to move into employment, and so become and remain independent.

  Ministers and officials from this Department, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills, the Scotland Office and the Wales Office have held discussions concerning the impact of ill health and disability on both individuals and employers, and specifically the role of vocational rehabilitation.

  Our Green Paper "Pathways to Work—Helping people into employment", published on 18 November, proposes more intensive support for people who move onto incapacity benefits. One element of this involves the establishment by Jobcentre Plus in conjunction with the NHS of new rehabilitation programmes, combining support to find work with management of an individual's health condition. These will be piloted in six areas across the country starting from late 2003.
  778W
  In addition, the Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot, a joint initiative with the Department of Health which also starts next year, will explore ways in which we can support people faced with losing their employment through prolonged sickness or disability.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the number of new employees needed in the housing sector over the next five years to meet Government targets on new house building in London and the South East; and if he will make a statement. [86905]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government has made no specific assessment for new house building in London and the South East. However, the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) has estimated that 76,000 new employees will be required each year in the construction industry between 2002 and 2006 and the Strategic Forum for Construction estimates that 300,000 qualified staff will need to be recruited to the construction industry by the end of 2006. CITB predicts that over 40,000 new recruits will be needed between now and 2006 in the Greater London area and that over 77,000 will be required in the South East.

  However, these figures are based on moderate growth levels in the construction industry. They do not take into account the step change in housing and regeneration activity that the Deputy Prime Minister will outline early in the New Year. In 2003 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister aims to produce an analysis of the impact on the industry of the level of construction work generated by the planned step change in housing investment.

  We will continue to work with the Department of Trade and Industry and Department for Education and Skills to ensure that there is sufficient capacity and the right skills in the construction industry to meet the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's ambitious targets.

  Local Government Finance Consultation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities he met, and on what dates, in connection with the local authority grant formula consultations. [86893]

  Mr. Leslie
  Tabled below are the meetings that the Ministers of Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had with local authorities or local authority representative groups, which were requested within the time scale of the Consultation on the Local Government Finance Formula Grant Distribution.
  779W

  Local Authority/Representative Group

  Date

  York City Council

  29/07/02

  Worcestershire County Council

  10/09/02

  F40

  17/09/02

  County Councils Network

  24/09/02

  Association of North East Councils

  24/09/02

  Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities

  26/09/02

  AC A Cliff Edge Group

  26/09/02

  Northern Alliance Group of County Councils

  26/09/02

  London Borough of Sutton

  26/09/02

  Town and Country Finance Issues Group

  09/10/02

  Shire Districts Liaison Group

  09/10/02

  Local Government Association

  09/10/02

  Mobile Phones
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what reports he has received on the compliance of (a) mobile phone companies in general and (b) T-mobile in particular with 'The Code of Best Practice in Mobile Phone Development' (i) in the London Borough of Southwark and (ii) across London; if he will call for up-to-date reports on the issue; and if he will make a statement. [86531]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 269W.

  Section 28
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2002,Official Report, column 627, in what way he proposes to take forward the statement in the Labour Manifesto in connection with the repeal of Section 28. [86527]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is still considering how best to do so.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for his Department(a) those comprehensive spending review 1998 targets that were outstanding at the time of the statement on the comprehensive spending review 2002, (b) progress on such targets since then and (c) the expected date when targets not yet achieved will be met. [87689]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister publishes progress against all its outstanding PSA targets in its annual report and autumn performance report.

  Progress against comprehensive spending review 1998 targets that apply to theOffice of the Deputy Prime Minister and that were outstanding at the time of the statement on the Spending Review 2002 was last reported in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Autumn Performance Report 2002, published on 29 November.

  The Report is available from the House Library, or can be accessed on the Office's website at the following address: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/about/aims/pdf/autjperf.pdf
  780W

HEALTH

  GM Food
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations have been received since 1999 asking for full(a) traceability and (b) labelling of GM food. [86172]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency conducted a written consultation on the European Commission's two proposals for new genetic modification legislation, issued in July 2001. 128 representations were received. 17 called for the labelling of all foods produced with, or made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 14 supported the concept of full labelling, but recognised the practical difficulties this presented. 22 responses supported the general concept of traceability. A further 16 supported full traceability, but expressed concerns over its implementation in practice. 19 representations expressed significant concerns over the reliability of traceability for foods and feeds derived from GMOs.

  Anaemia
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the basis is of his policy not to treat cancer patients with anaemia-related fatigue until their haemoglobin drops to 7 g/dl equates. [86267]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not operate the policy referred to. It is for individual clinicians to decide, in consultation with their patients, the most suitable treatment for their condition or for any side effects, such as anaemia-related fatigue, resulting from treatment.

  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure that patients with chronic anaemia should not be treated with red cell transfusions where effective alternatives exist. [86269]

  Ms Blears
  The publication of guidelines from the British Committee for Standards in Haematology in 2001 provides specific advice to clinicians. The type of treatment offered to chronic anaemia patients is a matter of individual clinical judgment and discussion with the patient concerned. The Department encourages the production of local protocols, which use existing guidance produced from a sound evidence base and clinical consensus.

  Blood Transfusion
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is producing the information on blood transfusion and its alternatives, which after April 2003 NHS trusts will be required to make available to patients; and whether this information will provide specific guidance for cancer patients. [86270]

  Ms Blears
  The National Blood Service is producing an information leaflet which is intended to be of use and interest to all patients who may need a blood transfusion. It will not provide specific guidance for cancer patients. The leaflet will be issued to all national health service hospitals early in 2003.
  781W

  Breast Cancer
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died of breast cancer in 2001; and what percentage of the cancer research budget is spent on breast cancer research. [86575]

  Ms Blears
  There were 10,924 deaths from breast cancer in England in 2001. The recent National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) report, Strategic Analysis 2002, analysed most of the directly-funded cancer research of Government and charity funders. The analysis revealed that 60 per cent. of research spend was relevant to all tumour sites. The other 40 per cent. was relevant to specific tumour sites. Approximately 18 per cent. of the site-specific research was on breast cancer.

  Emergency Hospital Readmissions
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the maximum number of days is between discharge and emergency readmission for a patient to be considered to be in the same episode of care. [84097]

  Mr. Hutton
  A decision has not yet been taken on the cut-off point for the maximum length of a discharge from hospital and subsequent readmission.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the basis is of his calculation of the baseline figure for 2001–02 and 2002–03 emergency readmissions. [82967]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: The baseline rate for both years was calculated as the number of patients readmitted to hospital within 28 days of discharge, divided by the number discharged from hospital. The baseline is derived from the outturn figures for the previous year.

  The baseline for 2001–02 was a rate of 7.3 per cent., and related to over 75s only. The 2002–03 target is for all ages, with a baseline rate of 5.4 per cent.

  Drug Misuse
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responses to the Audit Commission report, `Changing Habits', have been received from(a) the National Treatment Agency, (b) individual drug action teams and (c) individual drug reference groups. [82267]

  Ms Blears
  This Department has received no responses. The Audit Commission is an independent body and responses on its reports will normally be sent to the Commission itself.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chiropodists were working in the NHS in each year from 1997 to 2001; and how many were working in the NHS on the most recent date for which figures are available. [87680]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Between 1997 and 2001, the number of chiropodists ernployed in the national health service increased by 270, or eight per cent.
  782W

  Staff employed in chiropody/podiatry in England as at 30 September each year

  Qualified chiropody/podiatry staff

  1997

  3,290

  1998

  3,320

  1999

  3,370

  2000

  3,470

  2001

  3,560

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chiropodists completed training in 2001; and what proportion of these have commenced employment within the NHS as chiropodists. [87681]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on chiropodists completing training and what proportion joined the national health service is not collected centrally. Information on the number of chiropodists employed in the NHS and chiropodists entering training is given below.

  The number of chiropodists entering training in 1998–99, who would normally have completed training in 2001–02, was 409.

  Between September 2000 and 2001, the number of chiropodists employed in the NHS increased by 90, or 2.6 per cent., from 3,470 to 3,560.

  CJD (Lamb)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he gives to the public on(a) eating lamb and (b) the possible link between scrapie and CJD. [86906]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency is responsible for giving advice on food issues. The agency informs me that it is continuing not to advise consumers against eating sheep meat or sheep meat products. Earlier this year, consumers were advised that, if BSE were present in sheep, their risk would be significantly reduced by avoiding sausages made with sheep intestine.

  Epidemiological evidence does not suggest a link between scrapie and CJD.

  Acute Hospitals (Computer Viruses)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of damage to computer systems in acute hospitals resulting from computer viruses there have been in each of the past five years. [85779]

  Ms Blears
  Figures for computer virus incidents throughout the national health service are not currently available.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton of 21 June 2002,
  783W
  in respect of Dr. Roger Stephenson, acknowledged by the Department on 1 July 2002 under reference PO 1011562. [82528]

  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent on 10 December 2002.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters to him from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public remain unanswered, broken down by those which are (i) over six months, and (ii) over one year. [83279]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: At 11 December 2002, there were eight letters from hon. Members dated before 10 June 2002, which had not received a reply, and none over a year. Accurate information is not currently available for letters from members of the public, but this should be available in the new year.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 7 November 2002, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Mary Allcock. [86659]

  Mr. Milburn
  A reply was sent to the right hon. Member on 16 December 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 29 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Miss J Robson. [87655]

  Mr. Milburn
  A reply was sent to the right hon. Member on 16 December 2002.

  Diabetes
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the full National Service Framework for diabetes. [87850]

  Mr. Lammy
  We shall be publishing the delivery strategy for the diabetes national service framework in the next few weeks.

  Diagnostic Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS acute hospitals offer round-the-clock diagnosis and test results. [87527]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally. However, acute hospitals will provide 24-hour diagnostic services for emergency cases.

  Drug Treatment
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are in residential rehabilitation in their own drug action team area. [86692]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Information on whether individuals live within the health authority delivering treatment, for drug users presenting to residential rehabilitation, in the six month period ending 31 March 2001, is given in the table. Whether health authority (HA) of treatment and health authority and/or NHS Regional office (RO) of residence
  784W
  were the same for drug users presenting to residential rehabilitation during the period 1 October 2000 to 31 March 2001.

  Health authority of residence—data for England

  Numbers

  Percentages

  Number of users

  810

  100

  Same HA of treatment

  256

  32

  Different HA of treatment but same RO

  339

  42

  Resident outside RO of treatment

  105

  13

  Not known

  110

  14

  Notes:

  1. The data are from the Department of Health Regional Drug Misuse Databases

  2. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if hospital trusts with deficits will be entitled to(a) apply for foundation status and (b) obtain foundation status. [86936]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: National health service foundation trust status will only be made available to high performing three-star acute and specialist NHS trusts. The application process will entail an independent financial review in which applicants will need to clearly demonstrate a track record of good financial management and be financially viable.

  Genetic Testing
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations have been received from consumers and patient organisations as part of the HGC consultation on regulation of genetic testing services supplied direct to the public; and whether these organisations favoured(a) statutory regulation and (b) a voluntary industry code; [85203]

  (2) how many responses the HGC received during their consultation on the regulation of genetic testing services supplied direct to the public; and how many were in favour of (a) no action being taken, (b) a voluntary code being established, (c) a code plus statutory restrictions and (d) statutory restrictions; [85206]

  (3) when the HGC will be making recommendations to Government as a result of the consultation on regulation of genetic testing services supplied direct to the public; [85207]

  (4) if he will place in the Library the responses of the (a) Advertising Standards Agency, (b) British Embassies from Canada, Holland, Japan and the US, (c) DTI Policy Advisor on Internet Regulation, (d) Information Commissioner, (e) Medical Devices Agency, (f) Medical Research Council and (g) Occupational Health Advisory Committee to the HGC consultation on genetic testing. [85205]

  Ms Blears
  The Human Genetics Commission (HGC) consultation on genetic testing services supplied direct to the public closed in October 2002. HGC is analysing the responses and is conducting additional public surveys. HGC plans to publish its report and recommendations to Ministers early in 2003. It will also
  785W
  publish all of the non-confidential responses received during consultation and copies will be placed in the Library.

  HGC has now received written responses from 42 organisations and 22 individuals. Approximately 14 written responses and four oral evidence sessions were from consumer and patient groups. Of these, six favoured statutory regulation for at least some tests and three favoured voluntary codes. Of the written responses from all sources that expressed a view, none favoured no action, 11 favoured voluntary codes for some types of tests, 24 favoured a mixture of voluntary codes and statutory restrictions and 13 favoured statutory restrictions for some types of test.

  Genito-Urinary Clinics
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of genito-urinary medicine clinics are able to see urgent cases within 24 hours; [86567]

  (2) if he will make a statement on access to genitourinary open access clinics and waiting time for genitourinary clinics.—186568]

  Ms Blears
  Central data on genito-urinary medicine (GUM) clinic waiting times are available only for patients referred by general practitioners. GUM is an open access service and the vast majority of patients self-refer and therefore these data do not provide an accurate picture of waiting times for these services. One of the action points in the sexual health and HIV strategy implementation action plan is to develop a waiting times indicator for GUM and work on this is already under way. However, we are aware that there are pressures on GUM clinics which have led to long waiting times for some services. We have therefore invested over £5 million this year to improve capacity and reduce waiting times.

  Health Authority Chief Executives
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chief executives of former health authorities have taken(a) redundancy and (b) early retirement since April. [84590]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: Over 20,000 national health service staff were involved in the `Shifting the Balance of Power' (StBOP) reorganisation. 95 health authorities were replaced by 28 strategic health authorities, and in order to keep valuable skills and experience in the NHS, all staff involved in the reorganisation were given a 12-month guarantee of employment up to 31 March 2003.

  However, due to a variety of factors, it was recognised that some staff might not be able to gain suitable alternative employment in the NHS. These staff have been allowed to take early retirement or redundancy prior to 31 March 2003. Since April 2002, there has been one redundancy and 20 early retirements that have taken place among the former health authority chief executives.

  Health Services (East Kent)
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make a decision about the reconfiguration of health services in East Kent. [87094]
  786W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: A decision on the reconfiguration of acute services in East Kent could not be made while the Judicial Review of the process was under consideration. Now the judgment has been made Ministers are in a position to consider Kent and Medway Strategic Health Authority's recommendation. I cannot, at this time, give the hon. Member an indication of when that decision will be made.

  Herbal Remedies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on amendments 9 and 11 to the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive. [85798]

  Ms Blears
  Amendments 9 and 11 proposed by the European Parliament in relation to the draft Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would have the effect of allowing applications for traditional use registrations where individual active herbal ingredients had had traditional use but there was not evidence of traditional use of that particular combination. Elsewhere, within the proposed Directive, applicants are required to supply evidence of the traditional use of the specific combination and member states may refuse applications if the data on traditional use is insufficient. The amendments would therefore probably have limited effect.

  Our overall view on this issue is that active medicinal ingredients, herbal or otherwise, can interact causing adverse reactions and we would have concerns on public health grounds about combinations where safety was supported neither by tests and trials (as would apply in the case of a marketing authorisation) nor by evidence of long usage. In some cases one or more herbal ingredient in a combination could reasonably be regarded as non active, for example where included for taste or colour, and in that situation non active ingredients need not have been used as part of the traditional combination.

  It is likely to be possible to demonstrate traditional use of a great many herbal combinations. During continuing negotiations, and subsequent implementation if the Directive is agreed, we will look for ways to ensure that the regulatory impact of demonstrating traditional use of combinations is contained to the necessary minimum.

  Amendments 9 and 1 I also follow through a concept introduced in Amendment 6 which has the effect that classification of a product as a herbal medicinal product would depend on the active ingredients being present at a pharmacologically active level.

  We have some concerns about the proposal as drafted. There is an existing definition of a medicinal product in Directive 2001/83/EC. We would not wish to change that definition in relation to one category of medicinal product only (herbal medicines), in relation to an issue, (levels of pharmacological activity) that is a generic one, relevant to all medicines. Second, the amendment does not address the regulatory position of products which, under the existing definition, are classified as medicinal products by virtue of their presentation. Third, the dividing line between

  787W
  pharmacologically active and non pharmacologically active levels may be difficult to determine for many herbal substances.

  Our top priority in relation to the definition of a medicinal product in the ongoing negotiations on the review of Directive 2001/83/EC is to resist the provision, originally proposed by the European Commission, that would give precedence to medicines legislation for any product which fell within the definition of a medicinal product, even if that product was already regulated under other sectoral legislation. This proposal could have lead to many more products being classified as medicines. From the outset of negotiations we have argued vigorously against this proposal, seeking to enlist the support of other member states and Members of the European Parliament. We are therefore pleased that the European Parliament has not supported the Commission's original proposal and we will continue to argue for its deletion from the proposals.

  We also recognise that there are differences in member states' interpretation of the current definition of a medicinal product in relation to products close to the borderline of medicines and other regulatory regimes. We are therefore open to constructive dialogue, whether domestically or in a European forum, on this issue. We intend to discuss further the implications of these proposed amendments with the United Kingdom herbal sector in order to inform our negotiating position.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the supply of unregulated herbal medicinal products via the internet. [85799]

  Ms Blears
  Any website reported to the Medicines Control Agency, which appears to be in breach of regulations regarding advertising, sale and supply of medicines is investigated. The agency works closely with other Government Departments and law enforcement authorities, both in the United Kingdom and abroad, in an effort to identify and take action where appropriate.

  There is evidence that some unlicensed herbal medicinal products, whether sold via the internet or in other ways, may be of poor quality and in some cases may pose a threat to public health. Subject to the successful conclusion of negotiations, the proposed directive on traditional herbal medicinal products would provide a regulatory regime which should allow the public to choose from a wide range of herbal remedies made to assured standards of safety, quality and information. In turn this would make it possible for the public to be given much clearer advice than is currently possible about how to avoid unregulated herbal medicines which may pose a risk to health.

  Hospital Meals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost per hospital meal was(a) before and (b) after implementation of the Government's Better Hospital Food programme; and if he will make a statement. [86881]
  788W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: The better hospital food programme is designed to improve the quality, availability and access to food in hospitals and is a long-term programme. An additional £38.5 million has been made available to support this programme.

  The costs of providing meals varies, depending both on the particular dish involved and the method of production. Typically, a traditional system produces meals more cheaply, while a delivered meals service is more expensive. A report by the Audit Commission in September 2001 found average spending on food and beverages was £2.20 for a cook-serve system, £2.40 for a national health service operated cook-chill/freeze service, and £3.70 for a delivered meals service. However, there are a number of other issues such as overheads and capital replacement charges, which also vary according to the production system in use and which affect overall costs. There is therefore no average per meal cost.

  As part of the better hospital food programme, acute hospitals have been asked to include in their menus each day three of the dishes designed for the NHS by the `leading chef team. These dishes encompass main meals, desserts, salads and sandwiches. There are now 200 'leading chef' dishes included in the NHS dish selector and average costs for these dishes is no greater than those for other dishes currently in use in NHS hospitals.

  Hospital Trusts (Performance Ratings)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospital trusts which have had their star rating increased following the publication of the national tables in July. [86937]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: One trust, The Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, NHS trust, Bath, has had its performance rating reassessed since the publication of the national tables in July resulting in three stars being awarded.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trusts which previously had a three star rating lost one or more stars in the tables published in July. [86938]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: 16 of the acute trusts awarded three stars in the 2000–01 performance ratings lost one or more stars in the 2001–02 performance ratings, published in July 2002.

  Stem Cell Research
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is necessary to obtain a licence from the HFEA before conducting research into stem cell lines from human embryos, with particular reference to derivation and characterisation of such stem cells. [86523]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: A licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is required to bring about the creation of embryos in vitro and to keep or use embryos for the purposes of a project of research. All applications for a licence to use embryos to source embryonic stem cell lines will be required to justify why embryonic stem cells

  789W
  are to be used and will be required to provide detailed information on the fate of the stem cells throughout the process.

  Furthermore, it will be a condition of all these licences that a sample of all cell lines is placed in the Medical Research Council's (MRC) national stem cell bank. The subsequent use of any stem cell lines derived from embryos will be subject to a code of practice to be produced by the MRC stem cell bank steering committee.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the HFEA was given authority to issue research licences to conduct research involving stem cell lines from human embryos. [86524]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: Any research project involving the creation, keeping or using of human embryos outside the body must be licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). To grant a research licence, the HFEA must be satisfied that the research is "necessary or desirable" and that the use of human embryos is essential. Before 2001, the HFEA could grant licences for research projects only for the following specified purposes (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 Schedule 2, para.3(2):

  a) promoting advances in the treatment of infertility;

  b) increasing knowledge about the causes of congenital disease;

  c) increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriages;

  d) developing more effective techniques of contraception; or

  e) developing methods for detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation.

  In January 2001, Parliament passed regulations extending the purposes for which research licenses may be authorised to include:

  f) increasing knowledge about the development of embryos;

  g) increasing knowledge about serious disease;

  h) enabling any such knowledge to be applied in developing treatments for serious disease.

  Table 10.2 Gross expenditure on services for people with learning disabilities

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20005

  2000–01

  HCHS expenditure

  Total expenditure, 2000–01 pricesh1,2

  28,172

  26,387

  26,975

  27,760

  28,793

  30,099

  Expenditure on people with learning disabilities

  1,370

  1,460

  1,499

  1,486

  1,481

  1,486

  Percentage of total expenditure

  4.9%

  5.5%

  5.6%

  5.4%

  5.1%

  4.9%

  In-patient

  954

  966

  943

  898

  890

  889

  Out-patient

  12

  24

  25

  23

  22

  20

  Day patients

  49

  64

  63

  67

  65

  62

  Community

  355

  406

  468

  498

  504

  514

  PSS expenditures

  Total expenditure, 2000–01 prices1

  9,602

  10,271

  10,739

  11,356

  12,315

  12,848

  Expenditure on people with learning disabilities

  1,235

  1,340

  1,424

  1,565

  1,669

  1,752

  Percentage of total expenditure

  12.9%

  13.0%

  13.3%

  13.8%

  13.6%

  13.6%

  Adults4

  1,130

  1,236

  1,316

  1,459

  1,561

  1,647

  Assessment and care management4

  105

  103

  108

  107

  108

  105

  1Adjusted to 1999–2000 prices using HCHS deflator for NHS expenditure and 2000–01 prices using GDP deflator for PSS expenditure. Figures shown for 1999–2000 are not directly comparable with previous years due to estimations used and changes to the calculation methods.

  2 The HCHS expenditure information is based on profiles of expenditure provided by trusts but scaled to match health authorities' total expenditure. Thus, there is a possibility that the figures under estimate the expenditure on services purchased by health authorities from the private and voluntary sectors. It may be the case that hospital expenditure is over estimated and community expenditure is under estimated. These figures exclude health authority overheads.

  3Includes administrative and clerical overheads.

  4 Adults aged 16–64. Excludes expenditure on mental health provision for children which cannot be separately identified.

  790W
  Before 2001, the HFEA could, therefore, grant a licence for research projects involving the use of embryos to create stem cell lines if the research was for one of the purposes listed in (a) to (e) above.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what authority the HFEA gave a research licence to Professor Austin Smith at the Centre for Genome Research in Edinburgh to derive and characterise stem cell lines from human embryos in 1997. [86525]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority issued a licence to the assisted conception unit at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, later varied to the Centre for Genome Research, in 1996 for the purposes specified in paragraph 3(2)(a), (b) and (e) of Schedule 2 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

  Learning Disability Services
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the net health and social services expenditure on learning disability services over the past five years on a constant value basis; and what it will be in the next three years, adjusted for inflation at current values. [86314]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local authorities deliver services for people with learning disabilities within the framework of the White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" (Cm 5086), published in March 2001, and its associated advice and guidance. Within that framework it is for councils to decide on the level of current and future expenditure.

  The overall level of funding for social services, including that for learning disability, will increase by, on average, 6 per cent. per annum in real terms over the next three years.

  Information on net expenditure is not available in the form requested. Details of gross expenditure are in the table.
  791W

  5 Figures shown for 1999–2000 are not directly comparable with previous years due to estimations used and changes to the calculation methods.

  Source:

  Health Select Committee (FPA-PES) and RO3 return (PSS EX1 from 2000–01)

  Lung Cancer
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died of lung cancer in 2001; and what percentage of the cancer research budget is spent on lung cancer research. [86574]

  Ms Blears
  There were 26,922 deaths from lung cancer in England in 2001. The recent National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) report, "Strategic Analysis 2002", analysed most of the directly-funded cancer research of government and charity funders. The analysis revealed that 60 per cent. of research spend was relevant to all tumour sites. The other 40 per cent. was relevant to specific tumour sites. Approximately 3 per cent. of the site-specific research was on lung cancer.

  The NCRI has identified lung cancer as an area that might need more attention. We will be working with our research funding partners through the NCRI to fully understand the reasons for this and consider any actions that might be required.

  Maidstone Hospital
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her answer of 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 157W, regarding Duplex Scans at Maidstone hospital, who Kent and Medway SHA

  Hospital medical doctors in training1 within the psychiatry specialties—England, 30 September

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number per 100,000 population

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  240

  230

  230

  270

  250

  0.5

  Forensic psychiatry

  110

  140

  120

  140

  140

  0.3

  General psychiatry

  1960

  1990

  2030

  2040

  2010

  4.1

  Old age psychiatry

  220

  230

  240

  240

  260

  0.5

  Psychiatry of learning disability

  80

  90

  100

  100

  100

  0.2

  Psychotherapy

  50

  40

  40

  40

  40

  0.1

  1 Doctors in training includes the Registrar Group. Senior House Officers and House Officers

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Office of National Statistics, 29 April 2001 population census

  MRSA
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many MRSA patients were recorded in NHS hospitals in each of the last eight years; how many and what proportion of NHS hospitals recorded MRSA outbreaks; and how many and what proportion of NHS hospitals have full-time staff dedicated to the prevention and control of MRSA and related infections. [86683]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: These data are not collected centrally and I refer the hon. Member to the reply he received on 14 October 2002, Official Report column 521W. This provides the available data on methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) blood stream infections until April 2001 when mandatory MRSA bacteraemia surveillance
  792W
  consults on whether a scan is clinically necessary, in cases where patients are referred by a general practitioner. [87232]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: Decisions on the clinical necessity for duplex scans are made by clinicians at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Trust, not Kent and Medway Strategic Health Authority. The strategic health authority, as part of its management function, advised me on the practice at the trust in respect of duplex scans.

  Psychiatry
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors per 100,000 people were in training in each year since 1997 for(a) child and adolescent psychiatry, (b) forensic psychiatry, (c) general psychiatry, (d) old age psychiatry, (e) psychotherapy and (f) psychiatry of learning disability. [85638]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of doctors in training within the psychiatry specialties from 1997 to 2001 and a per population figure for 2001 only. Population figures are due to be updated shortly following publication of results from the 2001 population census. This will include a revised set of estimates for the years 1997 to 2000, but these figures are not yet available.

  was introduced. Data from the new surveillance system are available for every acute national health service hospital trust and the first year's results were published in the Communicable Disease Report Weekly on 20 June 2002 and are on the Public Health Laboratory Service website at www.phls.co.uk/publications/cdr/PDFfiles/2002/cdr2502.pdf. Information on the composition of infection control teams is not collected routinely.

  NHS Administrative Staff
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the ratio of administrative staff to total number of beds operating in the national health service was in each of the last 10 years. [83287]
  793W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Ratio of senior managers and managers in Administration and Estates to the daily average number of NHS beds in England, 1991 to 2001

  Senior managers and managers in Administration and Estates (headcount)

  Total daily average number of beds

  Ratio

  1991

  13,500

  258,550

  0.05

  1992

  16,860

  246,080

  0.07

  1993

  20,320

  236,170

  0.09

  1994

  23,350

  224,380

  0.10

  1995

  20,840

  217,510

  0.10

  1996

  21,260

  212,680

  0.10

  1997

  22,170

  210,520

  0.11

  1998

  22,690

  206,410

  0.11

  1999

  24,290

  203,340

  0.12

  2000

  25,260

  199,730

  0.13

  2001

  27,420

  199,670

  0.14

  Notes:

  1. Figures referred to are the overnight beds i.e. beds in wards open overnight.

  2. Beds data are collected on a financial basis each year.

  3. Senior managers and managers figures were collected on 30 September each year.

  4. A new classification of the non-medical work force was introduced in 1995.

  5. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  6. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  7. Ratios are rounded to two decimal places.

  Sources:

  1. Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  2. Bed figures are taken from the annual Körner return KH03 'bed availability and occupancy'.

  Orthopaedic Treatment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the longest current NHS waiting time is for orthopaedic treatment. [86036]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on waiting times is collected by specialty. The relevant specialty is trauma and orthopaedic.

  The latest published commissioner data for England in September 2002 show there were 11 patients waiting between 15 and 17 months for inpatient admission in the trauma and orthopaedic specialty.

  Overseas Nurse Advice Line
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2002,Official Report, column 909, on the overseas nurse advice line, how many whole-time equivalent staff are employed by the advice line; and what the budget for the advice line is for each of the next three years. [87239]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service overseas nurses advice line is operated in conjunction with NHS careers. There is a pool of NHS careers staff employed as call operators, who handle calls in addition to a team with health careers expertise advising on supervised practice and NHS careers.

  Decisions on the future financing of the advice line have not yet been made.
  794W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2002,Official Report, column 909W, on the Overseas Nurse Advice Line, how many calls were received on 0845850588 in each month since the line was set up. [87240]

  Mr. Hutton
  Over the three months that the national health service Overseas Nurses Advice Line has been operating it has received a total of 63 calls.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 909W, on the Overseas Nurse Advice Line, how he plans to inform (a) NHS organisations, (b) overseas governments, (c) overseas nurses and (d) other interested parties, of the Overseas Nurse Advice Line. [87241]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service organisations, overseas governments and overseas nurses have been informed of the NHS Overseas Nurses Advice Line through various means.

  Quarterly briefing meetings held by the chief nursing officer for the strategic health authorities has brought the advice line to the attention of nursing directors and primary care trust lead nurses throughout the NHS. In addition, the advice line was featured in the chief nursing officer's bulletin in October.

  Overseas governments with an interest in the recruitment of nurses have been informed about the NHS overseas nurses advice line through the issue of a card advertising the advice line.

  Cards advertising the advice line have been produced and distributed by organisations including the Royal College of Nursing and Unison, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and Independent Healthcare Association. The Nursing and Midwifery Council will be distributing cards to overseas representatives in the New Year.

  Quat
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research he has undertaken to examine the effect on health of using Quat. [82237]

  Ms Blears
  No research is currently being funded by the Government to examine the effect on health of using Quat. The advisory council on the misuse of drugs' research committee is now actively looking into commissioning research to gain an increased understanding of the risks associated with chewing Quat.

  Radiographers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for radiographers in acute hospitals; broken down by NHS trust. [85788]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of vacancies lasting three months and over are collected by national health service trusts and have been placed in the Library.

  Recruitment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report,

  795W
  column 608W, on recruitment, if he has written to NHS organisations with a list of unsuitable nursing agencies who persistently recruit nurses from developing countries, contrary to the code of practice; and what action he (a) has taken and (b) plans to take, against those NHS employers who have used nursing agencies who have breached the code of practice. [86806]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: The Department investigates any agency whose behaviour appears to be inconsistent with the code of practice. The agency will be investigated and given the opportunity to respond to the allegations and reconsider their practice.

  National health service organisations are strongly advised to refer to the list, which is available at www.doh.gov.uk/international-recruitment, when establishing new contracts.

  Road Traffic Casualties
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) why the maximum charges for the treatment of road traffic casualties by the NHS are to increase from 1 April 2003; [87553]

  (2) what consultations have been held with insurers about the proposed changes in the level of charges for the treatment of road traffic casualties by the NHS in April 2003; [87563]

  (3) what criteria were used to assess the appropriate level of increase in the charges in connection with the treatment of road traffic casualties by the NHS, set out in the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Amendment No.2 Regulations 2002; [87554]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the impact upon motor insurance premiums of the proposed charges set out in the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2002; [87564]

  (5) what changes in NHS income will result in 2003–04 from the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Amendment (No.2) Regulations 2002. [87555]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: Regulations to increase the tariff and cap for the recovery of national health service (NHS) costs following road traffic accidents were laid before Parliament on 11 December 2002. The regulations increase the tariff to take account of hospital and community health services (HCHS) inflation since 1997, which is the year the tariff was set. The regulations also increase the cap, as operational experience has shown
  796W
  that this was set too low when the scheme was introduced in April 1999. The increased cap would still relieve insurers of the full cost of treating those seriously injured in road traffic accidents.

  The Department undertook a consultation on the proposed increases, which ran for three months between July and September 2002. Departmental officials discussed the consultation and the proposed increases with members of the insurance industry and their trade bodies.

  The increased charges would increase income to NHS hospitals by around £56 million per year. However, as NHS costs are not repaid until the accident victim's compensation claim settles, which takes on average 18 months, NHS hospitals would not feel the full effect of the increases until the latter part of 2004. If this cost was spread evenly among all holders of compulsory motor vehicle insurance, then the cost of the average policy could be expected to rise by around 0.7 per cent., or around £3 per policy.

  The consultation on increasing the level of charges and summary of outcome can be found on the Department of Health's website at www.doh.gov.uk/consultations

  Smoking
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population smoke cigarettes in each region in England. [86396]

  Ms Blears
  Information on smoking prevalence for adults aged 16 and over is shown in the table.

  Prevalence of smoking, for adults aged 16 and over, by Government Office Region England, 2000

  Government Office Region

  Percentage

  North East

  27

  North West

  30

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  28

  East Midlands

  25

  West Midlands

  26

  Eastern

  25

  London

  27

  South East

  25

  South West

  27

  England

  27

  Note: For 2000, ONS have weighted the data to compensate for under-representation of people in some groups (for example, young men).

  Source: Analysis of the ONS General Household Survey, published as 'Living in Britain—Results from the 2000 General Household Survey'.

TREASURY

  Departmental Investment Strategy White Paper
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  I am today publishing a White Paper, Departmental Investment Strategies: A Summary, which sets out the Government's investment strategy over the next three years.

  As announced in the 2002 Spending Review, the Government will raise public sector investment by £12 billion over that period, including:
  £3 billion for improved buildings and equipment for our schools;
  £2.5 billion for the NHS to modernise our hospitals and health care facilities;
  £2 billion to invest in transport infrastructure; and
  £1 billion to improve our housing stock.

  The White Paper complements individual departmental investment strategies, to be published shortly by departments themselves, which set out more detailed plans. The purpose of the strategies is to set out:
  the public service outcomes that will be achieved with the new funding committed in the 2002 Spending Review;
  the progress that has been achieved since the last strategies were published in 2000;
  the improvements that departments have put in place to improve the management of the assets they own; and
  the reforms of procedures and systems put in place to get best value for money from the extra spending.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Scientific and Regulatory Agencies
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  I announced a review of the three science laboratories, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA), the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), and the two regulatory agencies, the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) on 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 839W The Review has concluded that overall, the five agencies have performed well and that at present, there is no case for changes to their ownership or structure. The Review makes a number of recommendations with the aim of strengthening the relationship between Defra and the agencies by:
  giving them greater strategic direction for planning and investment, and the systems and freedoms to run their businesses more effectively;
  40WS
  linking their work more closely and overtly with Defra's new agenda as a science evidence based department delivering a sustainable development agenda; and
  establishing clearly Defra's corporate ownership role.

  I am making copies of the Report available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Biological Diversity
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  Section 74 (2) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 placed a duty on the Secretary of State to list those habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of biological diversity in England, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 1992.

  I have sought advice from English Nature, our statutory nature conservation advisers on the lists as required by the Act. On the basis of this advice I have today published a list of the habitats and species which the Government considers to be of principal importance for the conservation of biological diversity in England. Copies of the list are available in the Library of the House. Action Plans under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan are already in place or under preparation for all the listed habitats and species.

  'Working with the Grain of NatureߞA biodiversity strategy for England' published on 24 October and also available in the Library of the House, sets out the means by which the Government will comply with its duty under Section 74 to take or promote the taking by others, of steps to further the conservation of the listed habitats and species, including through the continued implementation of the Action Plans.

  The list will be kept under review and a report on any necessary revisions will be made as part of the first report on progress on the Biodiversity Strategy for England in 2006.

  Environment Agency
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  I have today published the revised statutory Guidance to the Environment Agency under Section 4 of the Environment Act 1995. The Guidance covers the Agency's activities in England. It sets out the statutory objectives which the Agency should pursue over the next few years, advises on its role in contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, and lays down the principles it should follow in deciding its priorities. The Welsh Assembly Government is responsible for issuing guidance to the Agency covering its activities in Wales.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  New Millennium Experience Company
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  Further to the Prime Minister's response to the Member
  41WS
  for South Suffolk on 8 July, Official Report column 749W, Lord Rooker has full responsibility as Minister for the New Millennium Experience Company. The Member for Harrow East (Tony McNulty) will provide support in this House, although without any executive responsibility.

  The shareholding remains with Lord Falconer of Thoroton for the time being, while outstanding litigation is being resolved. It is the intention that the shareholding will transfer to Lord Rooker as soon as the litigation has been resolved. In the meantime, Lord Rooker has been granted power of attorney and any decisions in relation to the Company are being taken by him. Lord Falconer no longer has any Ministerial responsibility for the New Millennium Experience Company.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Lockerbie
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  I explained to the House on 11 July that I did not see a case for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster, but that I was going to look into whether other arrangements for scrutiny could be established.

  In considering what options might be available to us, we have taken the view that, to be of value, any scrutiny should be able to deliver new and useful conclusions despite the passage of time and the investigations that have already taken place.

  Those previous investigations have been extensive. They include a Fatal Accident Enquiry, the US President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism, a Transport Select Committee Enquiry, various internal Department of Transport reviews of aviation security, and the trial, conviction and unsuccessful appeal of al Megrahi.

  We have concluded that, given the absence of any significant new information, the fact that the key issues have already been extensively explored, and action taken, including substantial changes to airport procedures, it is most unlikely that any further form of enquiry would unearth further lessons to be learned, 14 years after the event, which had not already been identified by earlier investigations.

  The Government have therefore decided not to initiate any further form of review on Lockerbie.

  I explained this decision to the Lockerbie relatives at a meeting in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 17 December.

  Ian Stillman
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  Ian Stillman was arrested in 42WS
  India on 28 August 2000 and charged with possessing approximately 20 kgs of drugs. He was convicted on 2 June 2001 and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. The Indian government offered Mr Stillman clemency and he was released on compassionate and health grounds on 7 December 2002. A condition of his early release was that he leaves India. It is a matter for the Indian government whether he is allowed to return.

  We have been extremely active on Mr Stillman's case and raised it with the Indian government at every available opportunity. Over the last year I have discussed his case with the Indian Ministers on at least six occasions. Recently I raised it with the Indian Deputy Prime Minister, L K Advani on 21 August 2002 and the Indian Foreign Minister on 31 October 2002. Mr Advani said that if Mr Stillman submitted a clemency plea he would consider it sympathetically. I met members of Mr Stillman's family to discuss next steps in the case on 19 November 2002.

  The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Mike O'Brien (FCO Minister responsible for India) have also raised Mr Stillman's case with the Indian government. Recently the Prime Minister discussed Mr Stillman's case with Prime Minister Vajpayee on 12 October 2002 and subsequently wrote to him expressing the hope that Mr Stillman be released soon.

  Our consular staff in New Delhi and London have done all they can to help Mr Stillman and his family. We have been in close contact with the latter both in the UK and from time to time in India. Baroness Amos (FCO Minister responsible for consular matters) has taken a close interest in the case and met members of Mr Stillman's family twice this year.

  We took all proper measures to ensure that the Indian authorities were meeting Mr Stillman's welfare requirements during his imprisonment. Consular staff monitored his welfare closely through consular visits (generally every three months) and by keeping in regular touch with his family. We were instrumental in ensuring improvements to many aspects of his detention. These included helping him to be transferred to a prison with better conditions and facilities, ensuring that he was provided with a wheelchair and had better lighting in his cell. Consular staff arranged for a Board of Medical Consultants to examine him at a hospital in May 2002 and also helped secure permission from the prison authorities for medical and prosthetic specialists to visit him in prison. Recently they helped arrange for a diabetic specialist to visit Mr Stillman on 4 November.

  I am very glad that Mr Stillman's case has been resolved. I hope his early release will result in a significant improvement in his health. When I met the Indian Foreign Minister, Yashwant Sinha, in London on 11 December, I expressed my thanks to him and his colleagues in the Government of India for the compassionate action they had taken in securing Mr Stillman's release.

  Recent Changes to Sanctions Regimes
  Angola (UNITA)
  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the UN Security Council on 18 October 2002 unanimously adopted UN Security Council resolution 1439(2002). The resolution lifted the travel ban on members of UNITA and their immediate families listed in paragraphs 4a and 4b of UN Security Council resolution 1127(1997) from 14 November 2002. The travel ban had been suspended since May, pursuant to UN Security Council resolutions 1412(2002) and 1432(2002).
  Resolution 1439 (2002) also committed the Security Council to review all remaining measures imposed on UNITA by 19 November 2002. Following the review with the support of Her Majesty's Government, the Security Council voted unanimously to adopt United Nations Resolution 1448(2002) on 9 December 2002. This resolution lifted all remaining sanctions measures on Angola (UNITA). This is in recognition of the considerable progress made in Angola since the formal cessation of hostilities on 4 April 2002, and the broad fulfilment of the tenets of the Lusaka Peace Protocol by UNITA.
  Sierra Leone
  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the Security Council voted unanimously to adopt resolution 1446(2002) on 4 December 2002. The resolution extended the embargo on the export of rough diamonds without a Certificate of Origin, controlled by the Government of Sierra Leone. This extension will allow the Government of Sierra Leone to extend and consolidate their authority over the diamond-mining fields in the country.
  Democratic Republic of Congo
  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 22 October agreed Council Common Position 2002/829. The European Union introduced an embargo on the export of arms to Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) in 1993 pursuant to an EU declaration of 7 April 1993. The Common Position (2002/829) amends the scope of that arms embargo by providing that the arms embargo does not apply to temporary exports for personal use of United Nations personnel; and does not prohibit the export of non-lethal military equipment with a legitimate humanitarian use to representatives of the media and humanitarian and associated personnel, or equipment to be used for the clearance and destruction of anti-personnel landmines.
  Burma
  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 22 October agreed Council Common Position 2002/831. The Common Position extends EU sanctions against Burma for a further six months. The Common Position and the accompanying Council Regulation also update
  44WS
  the list of individuals subject to EU sanctions to take account of recent changes to the Burmese military regime.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Legacy
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson)
  A summary of the responses has been published in line with the White Paper commitment to openness and transparency. Copies are available in the Library and on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/ energy/nuclear/index.shtml. The responses show strong support for the approach set out in the White Paper and, in particular for the Government's commitment to driving forward work on legacy clean up. As announced in the Queen's Speech, draft implementing legislation will be published in the Spring.

  Small Business Support
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  The Small Business Service (SBS) is today publishing a new policy framework for small business entitled 'Small Business and Governmentߞthe Way Forward'. I am placing copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The framework represents a focusing of the Government's small firms policy on seven core themes: building an enterprise culture; encouraging a more dynamic start-up market; building the capability for small business growth; improving access to finance for small businesses; encouraging more enterprise in disadvantaged communities and under represented groups; improving small businesses experience of Government services; and developing better regulation and policy. These will be built into seven national strategies to make a reality of the Government's vision for the small business sector. The Government wants more people to have the ambition of starting their own business, and for all those who take that step to have every chance of succeeding. Our aims are:
  Many more people, regardless of their background, having the desire, skills and opportunity to start a successful business;
  Everyone with the ambition to grow their business being helped and supported;
  A supportive business environment with all small businesses finding it easy to respond to Government and access its services.

  The framework is designed to ensure a coherent engagement between the whole of Government and the small business sector. It stresses that small businesses are the responsibility of all of Government and not just one Department. All parts of Government will have contributions to make to the seven strategies.

  The framework envisages a strong role for the SBS as a centre of expertise on small business issues based on its experience of delivering services to this particular community and its extensive research base and network of contacts. This expertise will be used by the whole of Government in developing policies and services which affect small businesses.
  45WS
  The policy framework follows on from the joint Treasury and SBS paper, 'Enterprise Britain: a modern approach to meeting the Enterprise Challenge' published in November 2002.

  ECGD Trading Fund
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  I informed the House on 22 July 2002, Official Report columns 779–780W, that Ministers had decided that ECGD should proceed to Trading Fund status. I also reported that I had asked ECGD to improve its customer care for new customers and make it easier for them to access its support.

  I am pleased to be able to announce that work is well underway between ECGD and HM Treasury to agree the policy and objectives, financial and regulatory frameworks and operational details of a Trading Fund, with a view to an effective operational structure being put in place as soon as possible.

  The aim is to complete this work by the summer recess, which will enable a consultation paper to be launched in September 2003 to ensure that the views of ECGD's customers and other stakeholders are fully taken into account. A pilot Trading Fund will also be launched in September, or as shortly thereafter as practicable, which will provide valuable operational experience which, together with responses to the consultation, will inform the final decisions on a statutory Trading Fund framework.

  Subject to these decisions, it is planned to effect the formal establishment of the statutory Trading Fund by no later than April 2005.

  ECGD established a dedicated New Customer Service Team in November. This is already providing a valuable point of contact between ECGD and exporters who had never previously used its services by helping them through the export finance process.

  ECGD is committed to providing a first class service to UK exporters and investors. I want it to offer a service that puts it amongst the best export credit agencies in terms of innovation, flexibility and product quality. Proceeding to Trading Fund status should provide a robust platform for ECGD to achieve both its business and financial objectives and secure its future as an important provider of support for UK exporters and investors.

  British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson)
  Licensing of the GB system operator cannot take place until the necessary legislation has received Royal Assent. I am minded to accept the recommendation of the GB system operator Selection Panel, that The National Grid Company plc's application for the role of GB system operator should be accepted.

DEFENCE

  Missile Defence
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  I have today received a letter from United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, requesting UK agreement to upgrade the Early Warning Radar at RAF Fylingdales for missile defence purposes.

  As set out in the discussion paper published on 9 December, the Government believes that the developing ballistic missile threat is one that we must take very seriously. We assess that at present there is no immediate significant threat to the territory of the UK from ballistic missiles. However, intentions can change quickly, and the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles is continuing. We could not wait until a specific threat became clear before determining how to defend against it.

  The US is looking to work closely with friends and allies in developing defences which enhance global security in the face of this potential threat. As well as improving US defence, an upgraded Fylingdales radar would be a key building block in the extension of missile defence to Europe, should we and other European Allies so desire. In this context, Mr Rumsfeld's letter contains the undertaking that, if Fylingdales were to be upgraded, and should we desire it, then the US would be prepared to extend missile defence coverage and make missile defence capabilities available to the UK as the evolution of the US system permits, subject to agreement on appropriate political and financial arrangements.

  RAF Fylingdales has operated since 1963 as one of several sites which provide early warning of ballistic missile launches against this country, Western Europe or the United States. The station is under UK operational command, and the data it produces is shared between the UK and US military authorities. The upgrade requested would enable the system to track ballistic missiles more accurately, so that they could be engaged by interceptors, in addition to the radar's existing role. I understand that a parallel request has been made to the Danish Government for upgrade of the radar at Thule, Greenland.

  The US propose no change to existing arrangements for data-sharing and operational command at Fylingdales, maintaining the long-established principle of joint decision-making relating to the use of US strategic assets based in the UK. It is expected that the work would involve installation of new computers and software, and an additional communications link. No material environmental impact would be expected, but this will need to be confirmed in further discussions with the US and local planning authorities. The US would hope to start work later next year, and will accordingly make contingency provision in their defence budget.

  Mr Rumsfeld's letter also proposes the early conclusion of a new bilateral Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Memorandum of Understanding, to ensure that the UK, both government and industry, have the fullest possible insight into, and opportunity for involvement in, the missile defence programme. I

  47WS
  believe this represents an important industrial and technological opportunity for the UK regardless of our response to the US request.

  The decision on Fylingdales upgrade will be an important one, and the Government is keen for it to be informed by public and Parliamentary discussion. We shall ensure that this House has appropriate opportunities to discuss the issues in the New Year.

  The Government will now consider the US request very seriously, agreeing to it only if we are satisfied that it will ultimately enhance the security of the UK and the NATO Alliance. I will make a further statement in due course.

  Depleted Uranium Pilot Study
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  I announced on I May 2002 (Official Report, column 792W) to my hon Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr Palmer) that contracts had been placed with five independent laboratories to carry out a pilot study to examine different methods of determining the Depleted Uranium content in urine. This study, which was to be carried out under the auspices of the independent Depleted Uranium Oversight Board (DUOB), would examine a number of different methods and establish whether a suitably, accurate, precise and sensitive test was available. Subject to its outcome, I hoped that a test could be made available to serving personnel and veterans in October 2002.

  The pilot study is now complete, and has unfortunately produced inconclusive results. This is likely to be as the result of inadvertent contamination of the spiked urine samples used in the study. The DUOB has decided that a second stage of the pilot study is therefore required. This will involve the three laboratories whose results in the first phase were most consistent.

  A detailed protocol for the creation of the spiked samples has been produced by the technical experts of the DUOB in consultation with these three laboratories, designed as far as possible to avoid contamination in the second stage.

  We expect to place contracts for the second stage in January 2003, with the results of the study expected in April. Subject to satisfactory results from the pilot exercise, we expect to be able to make the test available towards the end
  of the first half of 2003

LORD CHANCELLOR

  Data Protection
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper)
  The Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002 comes into force today. The Order allows Members of this House and other elected representatives to deal with constituency cases involving individuals' sensitive personal data without having to seek the individuals' explicit consent. The Order does not otherwise remove the duty to comply 48WS
  with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Order applies to information about individuals' racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious beliefs, trade union activity, health, sex life and criminal activity. I understand that officials of the House are preparing guidance on the Order.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Race Equality (Scotland)
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  An Order under Section 71C of the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended) has today been laid before Parliament. The Order brings into effect, the Code of Practice on the duty to promote race equality in Scotland. It offers practical guidance to Scottish public authorities on how to meet their duty to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote race equality and related duties.

  The Statutory Code of practice on the duty to promote race equality in Scotland will come into effect on 19 December 2002.

  Women's Royal Voluntary Service Office Premises Ltd.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  WRVS (Women's Royal Voluntary Service) Office Premises Ltd currently owns 147 properties (valued by WRVS at £2,904,089) and other assets derived from the proceeds of the sale of properties and other assets (£6,222,436) (mainly the proceeds of the earlier sales of properties) on trust for the Home Secretary.

  An independent review of WRVS in 1997 identified that WRVS' financial dependence on Government and restrictions on its property holdings were major barriers to its goals of modernisation and independence.

  I gave Parliament 14 days notice on 4 November 2002 by means of a Departmental minute that to help WRVS achieve these goals I will give the reversionary interest in the properties and other assets held on trust to WRVS Office Premises Ltd absolutely (total value £9,126,525) and subject to annual Parliamentary approval gradually reduce the grant-in-aid received by WRVS in 2002ߝ3 of £4.2 million to £1 million a year by 2007ߝ08.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  This statement is in response to Early Day Motion 285 which expressed concerns about the contingent liability in respect of the London Underground PPP notified by my Minute of 4 December.

  The contingent liability would crystallise only in the event that the Mayor of London proceeds with his legal challenge to the plans, and in the event that any successful challenge has a material adverse effect on an Infrastructure Company. Significant risk is transferred

  49WS
  to the private sector under the London Underground PPP. Should the contingent liability materialise, the amounts payable will in large part be attributable to
  50WS
  paying for the investment that has already been undertaken under the PPP contracts and has gone into the Tube.

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.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, l have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,
Appropriation (No. 2) Act.

Strategic Defence Review
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made in implementing the Strategic Defence Review, particularly in respect of the capability to engage in expeditionary warfare on land.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, since 1998 we have implemented over two-thirds of the key Strategic Defence Review (SDR) measures. We have made good progress towards more flexible and rapidly deployable expeditionary forces. The New Chapter work built on the Strategic Defence Review. It looked at countering international terrorism and asymmetric attack, and at building network-enabled capability. Our Armed Forces will need to continue to evolve to meet the needs of the 21st century. Next year's defence White Paper will set out how we plan to take this forward.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. In so doing, I remind the House that I have an interest in this area. The SDR is a very detailed, and, indeed, a very good defence plan. However, can the Minister say what progress is being made as regards the detail? For example, what progress is he making in establishing— and, most importantly, equipping—a Royal Logistics Corps water transport squadron?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bach: My Lords, noble Lords seem to think that I do not know the answer to the noble Earl's question, but I do.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bach: My Lords, we are in the process of procuring a new fleet of water tankers and fuel tankers. If the noble Earl will be patient, a decision will be made
526
very soon. By 2004, that fleet of tankers will provide highly capable and reliable capability. Before then, prudent contingency planning will ensure that we have sufficient off-road fuel carrying capability to meet any likely operational requirements.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords. the SDR expeditionary strategy relies heavily on aircraft carriers. In view of HMS "Ocean" being in refit for the foreseeable future, can the noble Lord say what measures the Government are taking to ensure that aircraft carriers are available?
Lord Bach: My Lords, aircraft carriers will be available if they are needed. There is no question of any shortage in that field. As the noble Lord will know, by 21st January of next year we intend to choose which of two competing companies will be responsible for the construction of two new aircraft carriers that emerge straight out of the Strategic Defence Review, the first one of which we hope will sail in 2012.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell the House to what extent the Defence Medical Services will be able to meet the possible challenges of the coming months?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we have acknowledged the manning and equipment shortfalls in the DMS, and are addressing those matters. We are committed to manning the services fully. Recruitment into training is generally satisfactory. Retention of experienced personnel is the main problem facing the DMS. Improved retention is the key element in our plans. We recognise that both financial and non-financial measures have a part to play in the process. Up until now, the Defence Medical Services have met all the operational commitments placed upon them. l am sure that they will continue to do so in the future.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the current position in the Ministry of Defence regarding the sustainability of a force for a longish period of duty in the field? Is it not a fact that we are short of medium and heavy lift? Further, can the noble Lord say what we are doing—and, if so, where—about training the Armed Forces for war?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that the capability and sustainability of UK Armed Forces to engage in expeditionary warfare on land was demonstrated most successfully during Exercise Saif Sareea II last year, as well as in operations in recent years; for example, in the Balkans, in East Timor, in Sierra Leone, and in and around Afghanistan. I can tell the House that the strategic sealift service will provide six ro-ro vessels for routine freighting, three of which are already in service with a fourth being not far away from that stage. As

527
for strategic airlifts, as the noble Viscount will know, pending the introduction of the A400M aircraft we have leased four C17 aircraft that are doing a fine job.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister advise the House what part it is intended that the British Armed Forces will play in the 25,000 strong NATO rapid reaction force?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we have led the ambitions for such a force. We have played an important role in ensuring that such a force becomes a central part of NATO policy. It follows, therefore, that we shall play an important part in such a force.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in the event—
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister confirm—
Noble Lords: Cross Bench!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I do not believe that there has been a Conservative questioner since the original Question was put.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister confirm, or otherwise, that ships are being chartered in readiness to take troops to the Gulf, and that tanks are being prepared for desert warfare?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first question, I cannot confirm, "or otherwise". The answer to his second question is, yes. It is true that work is being carried out on the Challenger 2 tank as we speak.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in the event of a major conflict, to what extent will the Defence Medical Services be dependent on reserve personnel called up from the Territorial Army? What effect is that likely to have on an understaffed National Health Service?
Lord Bach: My Lords, if a medium-scale war-fighting force were needed to be deployed on operations, the Defence Medical Services would need to call out reservists in order to meet the operational commitment. As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, that is currently a matter for discussion between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, the noble Lord said that tanks are being prepared. How many tanks actually are prepared?
Lord Bach: Enough, my Lords

NHS: Staffing
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend to take to recover the staff who have been persuaded to leave the National Health Service to join the private healthcare sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government are implementing a range of measures to improve the recruitment, retention and return of staff in the NHS, including improved pay, more flexible and supportive family working conditions, greater access to childcare and more training.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Did he see the newspaper report of 27th November on the Secretary of State's speech to the CBI? It states that the Secretary of State said that,
"when the Civil Service did find someone with the right skills and experience for negotiating … he was frequently poached by the private sector".
Does the Minister think that anything can be done to improve the return of private dentists, for example, who went private because they could no longer continue in the health service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Generally, my Lords, in most of the professions, we are not aware of overt poaching by the private sector from the National Health Service. However, I am well aware of the issues which the noble Baroness raises in relation to dentists. I think that the number of dentists with GDS contracts with the NHS has in fact increased, although the amount that each does has probably decreased. I believe that the solution lies in the discussions between the department and the profession to look at the current contract and get dentists off what they feel is the treadmill of NHS work. We seek to give them a more rewarding career in NHS dentistry, and we are very keen to work with the profession on that.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, attracting professionals back from the private sector is often a matter of attracting them after they have brought up a family. How successful has the Government's campaign, launched in January 2001, been in bringing more midwives back to the NHS?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, midwives are a very important group, and we certainly expect them to benefit from the initiatives we have introduced to encourage a return to practice. Those initiatives

529
include flexible working practices, family-friendly working policies, and access to further continuing professional development—an important component in ensuring that midwives feel that the NHS is a place where they want to work.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that one of the areas of difficulty is over agency nurses? Many nurses are attracted away from the NHS to work for agencies where pay is higher. Does he agree that the reason for that is very often the mismatch between the NHS nursing establishment and the actual need for nurses in a given hospital? For example, if the nursing establishment is calculated on the basis of 85 per cent bed occupancy, but the hospital is actually experiencing 98 per cent bed occupancy, there is immediately created a market for agency nurses. Is it possible that the bed occupancy rate can be recalculated so that the NHS nursing establishment is adequate for what is needed in a particular hospital?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is no doubt about it: one of the key challenges facing us is to increase our capacity to deal with the patients whom we need to treat, and recruiting more staff is a very important part of that process. It is worth pointing out that, from 1997 to 2002, we increased the number of nurses working in the health service by nearly 40,000, a very important achievement. However, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we need to reduce our dependence on agency nurses. That is why we have launched a new scheme called NHS Professionals in which we offer NHS employment conditions to staff wishing to he employed flexibly. The scheme is starting to get a grip on the issue within the health service, and I hope that, as it develops, we will indeed reduce our dependence on agency nurses and the costs accruing from that dependence.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, on the matter of flexible working practices, is consideration being given to encouraging nurses, for example, to work in both the secondary and the primary care settings and in community-based activities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. As the role of nurses in the community has developed over the years, evidence has shown that a number of experienced nurses from the hospital sector have gone into nursing in the community, and vice versa. We should certainly encourage that. I also believe that the development of nurse consultant posts, which reward nurses for staying in clinical leadership and practice, is another way of enhancing the profession and making it attractive to nurses with a lot to give but who do not wish to go into management.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, sometimes, especially at night, very young qualified nurses are put in a position of great responsibility although they feel that that is too much for them and that, subsequently, some of them
530
throw in their hand? Will he also tell us what has happened about the sisters and the matrons he promised?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to point out that we depend very much on nurses, often on newly trained nurses, and that they face many pressures. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. The long-term answer is to increase the number of nurses employed within the National Health Service. That would result in more nurses on the wards. Student and newly qualified nurses could then look to more experienced nurses for advice, management and skilled leadership to make them less vulnerable. In the mean time, we are redoubling our efforts to ensure that newly qualified nurses in particular are given appropriate supervision. We are keen to see the development of the concept of modern matrons, which involves giving nurses back the authority that they have lost over the past 20 years. The more authority a nurse has on a ward, the better that ward will be run.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when will the Government start to look at health provision in the round? Does it really matter whether health provision comes from the private sector or the public sector? The Minister has been talking about attracting nurses and, to an extent, consultants back into the National Health Service from the private sector.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have set up workforce development confederations at local level to consider the needs of the health service in terms of how many people need to be trained to meet future requirements. The workforce confederations also take into account the likely demand from the private sector. I agree with the substance of the point that the noble Lord raises; namely, that if you consider a local healthcare system in the round, you need to consider the contribution that the private sector makes bearing in mind that the NHS purchases about: 7.5 per cent of all the work undertaken in the private healthcare acute sector at the moment and that, in the area of long-term care, nursing homes and residential homes have a critical bearing on our ability to discharge patients from hospital when they no longer need treatment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, what is being done to clear the backlog of medical trainees who apply for flexible training posts but are currently told that there is no funding for flexible training and that therefore they either have to work full time or take a career break and in so doing are lost to the service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, our aim is to have up to 1,000 doctors on a flexible career scheme by 2004. I was not aware of the problems raised by the noble Baroness but I should be happy to look into the matter.

Overseas Hauliers: Charges
2.53 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on the introduction of a carnet system for foreign hauliers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the 2001 Labour Manifesto made a commitment to,
"ensure that hauliers from overseas pay their fair share towards the cost of our roads".
In the 2001 Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor gave a commitment that the UK haulage industry would not pay any more as a result of the introduction of a charge and consulted on options to deliver that commitment.
In Budget 2002 the Chancellor announced that the Government aimed to introduce a distance-based lorry road user charge in 2005 or 2006. Since the Budget, detailed work has been undertaken on how to administer and procure the charging systems. The recent Pre-Budget Report announced that the Government will publish a second progress report early next year.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he indicate whether the charge to be paid by foreign hauliers will correspond to the road user charge and the environmental charge that should be levied on a typical five-wheeled vehicle? If that is not the case, why will they be charged less?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that the amount to be charged is the most urgent priority. In consultation with the industry we have chosen probably the most technically advanced but the best scheme which comprises a distance-based charging scheme rather than a time-based charging scheme. It requires satellite technology. The technological aspects of the scheme are being studied and will be reported on again soon. Questions regarding the amount of the charge will properly follow from that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate whether any discussions have taken place on the issue with the European Commission and, if not, why not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, discussions certainly have taken place with the European Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, knows, the European Commission has issued a directive on the Euro vignette system but at the moment that applies only to motorways. We are keen for a charging scheme to be extended. Germany and Austria are already working on that and we are in close contact with them on the matter.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the House should welcome the fact that the new carnet system for foreign lorries will be based on distance travelled. But how will it promote fair competition vis-à-vis British hauliers
532
whose payment through tax, vehicle excise duty, fuel duty or whatever is based not on distance travelled but largely on a lump sum per annum?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, fuel duties are based on distance: the more you travel, the more fuel you use. In that sense, the new system will be directly comparable. What we said, and what we shall stick to, is that there will not be any additional charge for the UK haulage industry. I am not saying that it is certain that the rebates, in effect, to the UK haulage industry will take the form of reduced fuel duty but that certainly seems the most likely possibility.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as president of the Heavy Transport Association. The Minister referred to road user charging and satellite technology. Why cannot we just extract the necessary data from the new digital tachographs being introduced in the haulage fleet?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that has been assessed as tachographs could be enforced as regards foreign vehicles travelling to this country. However, there is a difficulty as regards potential fraud. For that reason we publicly committed ourselves to a satellite-based system even though we are aware that it will take longer to introduce.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to a satellite-based system. To what extent will it conform to international standards?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand to which international standards the noble Lord refers. I shall have to discuss the matter with him and then write to him rather than attempt to reply now.

Postal Services and Competition
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view on Postcomm's recent proposals to open up the United Kingdom postal market to competition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the European Postal Services Directive requires that the level of services that may be reserved will reduce to 100 grams in 2003 and to 50 grams in 2006, leaving the final step to a decision in 2006. Postcomm also has a primary duty under the Postal Services Act 2000 to ensure the provision of a universal postal service and, subject to that duty, to further the interests of users by promoting competition. In line with those obligations, and after consultation, Postcomm has published its market opening strategy.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will my noble friend comment on the fears expressed by Royal Mail about the Postcomm proposals; namely, that even if there is an increase in postal charges for letters there will still be a black hole of £463 million in its finances? Is that not putting at risk part of our heritage; that is, the delivery of a letter anywhere in the UK at the same price?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as everyone knows, Postcomm was established by the Postal Services Act 2000 as an independent regulator to make decisions on price increases. I remind my noble friend that its primary duty is to ensure the provision of a universal postal service and, subject to that duty, to further the interests of consumers by promoting competition. Having taken the Government out of decisions about price increases, it makes no sense for the Government to second guess Postcomm or to comment on the underlying cost structure of the decisions that it takes.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although it is not good for the Government to second guess something they have given to someone else, they have a responsibility in relation to pricing policies directed by Postcomm? Will he take from me the assurance that a universal postal service cannot succeed unless Postcomm is brought back under control? Given that Postcomm commissioners are meeting on Thursday, will he take the opportunity to remind them of their responsibility to the Royal Mail, the public and staff? Instead, they give the impression to all and sundry that their only interest is to open the Post Office business to predators who are waiting like vultures to get into the Post Office network? I should declare my interest as a former postman.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that I do agree. The obligation to consider price increases lies firmly with Postcomm. I remind the House again that its primary duty is to ensure the viability of the universal postal service. Its market opening proposals are entirely in line with that obligation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister has repeated once or twice his remark about the primary duty of Postcomm and has referred to the universal postal service. Does he not agree that the Post Office may disappear altogether, given that there is no longer a level playing field? That would not create the competition that the Government wanted when they introduced the relevant legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, referred to the competitors who are waiting to come in as "predators". I am not saying that; I would call them "competitors", because we all want competition so long as it does not knock out the Post Office. Will international competitors offer the same opportunity to the Post Office to operate in their countries. if it should so wish?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall deal directly with that question because it is of interest. Three licences have been given so far: to TPG, which is the Netherlands post office, to Deutsche Post, which is the German one, and to Hayes Commercial Services Ltd. The Netherlands and Germany both have liberalised markets for postal services. In this case, as one would expect, international competition is coming not from markets that have been protected but ones that have been liberalised. Both the Netherlands and Germany have considerable liberalisation but, interestingly, in both cases the main Post Office has retained a very large share of the market.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the increased revenue that will accrue to the Post Office from the penny increase in stamp prices is being undermined by all the changes proposed by Postcomm? Does he agree with Alan Leighton, chairman of the Royal Mail, who described the package as the regulator giving with one hand and grabbing even more back with the other? That is regulation gone mad.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I simply reiterate that it is the job of Postcomm to make those decisions. We have a duty to open up and liberalise our markets. It is Postcomm's job to decide what price increases are reasonable, and it has done so based on the facts and after lengthy consultation.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in an integrated Europe, there must be a case to be made for a universal postal system in the European Union? What is the Government's view on that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is always interesting to see the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, as ever, promoting the cause of an integrated Europe. No doubt when the federal government, about which he is so concerned, takes place. that will be one of the first things on their agenda. The Government fully support competition between national postal organisations, which we believe will be healthy for the consumer.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will my noble friend take back the comments made in this House that the Postcomm proposals appear to put at risk the universal postal service? That is a strong fear expressed on all sides of the House.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Postcomm was established by the Postal Services Act 2000. It is an independent regulator, has statutory duties and, like other regulators, can be held to account by Parliament via a Select Committee. If it is felt that it is not discharging its duties, that is the action that should be taken.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House whether the proportion of first-class letters

535
being delivered the next day is going up or down? In my experience, it is getting worse and worse. I am not sure how the new liberalisation will help that.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one of the usual things that follows from more competition is an increase in the quality of service. I shall write to my noble friend with the most recent figures.

Financial Services Authority
3.6 p.m.
Lord Newby Lord Newby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the departure of Sir Howard Davies, they plan to split the roles of chairman and chief executive of the Financial Services Authority.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Financial Services Authority's governance structure and how it accounts for its performance reflect its unusual status as a private company with no shareholders. These arrangements were approved by Parliament after extensive debate. The Government had, and continue to have, confidence in the FSA's governance and accountability mechanisms, including its existing board structure. We agreed to review the position in response to the Cruickshank report, and will do so now when we appoint a successor to Sir Howard Davies.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, I hope he accepts that the bulk of informed opinion, whether from the City, the media or elsewhere, strongly supports the argument for splitting the roles of chairman and chief executive of the FSA, given that body's wide powers. I urge him to ask his right honourable friend the Chancellor to take an early decision on the matter—frankly, it is not all that difficult—before proceeding quickly to make the appropriate appointments to avoid any uncertainty about the future direction and management of the FSA.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, says about informed City opinion. However, even when informed City opinion agrees with the noble Lord—and I am not committed on that point—it is not always right. I can assure the noble Lord that arrangements will be made for a successor to be appointed to Sir Howard Davies in good time before he leaves his post to start at the London School of Economics on 1st October next year.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, in the light of the Financial Times article entitled "Howard's way needs to divide", of the discussions in this House on the Enterprise Bill in which the settled view was that the Competition Commission should have a chairman and chief executive, and of the Government's own Strategy Unit on a review of charities recommending
536
that the chairman and chief executive should be separated, is it not time for the Government to say "Yes" to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Newby?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the Government were going to say "Yes", they would not leave it to me to make the announcement to Parliament. Someone more important would do it. The answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is "No". He refers to a "settled view" about the chairmanship and chief executive, although he should have referred to the Office of Fair Trading, not to the Competition Commission. We were defeated in a vote on the Enterprise Bill, but we won in a vote on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Parliament has therefore taken the view that the posts should be combined. I repeat that we have undertaken to review the matter when we appoint a successor to Sir Howard Davies, and we shall do so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister realise that when he uses the phrase "a successor", in the singular, he begs the question raised by my noble friend Lord Newby?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is of course right. I should have said, "a successor or successors".
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, what are the reasons for placing the increased workload on the shoulders of the FSA and its chief executive? Does the Minister include over-regulation among those reasons?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Parliament gave the FSA a series of very demanding tasks. It is true that the FSA is one of the most wide-ranging regulatory systems for a financial services industry in the world. It is also true that by regulation it has been decided that the scope of the FSA will be increased twofold by the inclusion of the mortgage industry and general insurance. Yes, the size of the FSA has gone up considerably. It is of course a matter for Sir Howard Davies, his colleagues and his board to decide what effect that has on the workload of any one individual.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, although the Minister talks of extensive consultation on, and discussion about, combining the roles during the passage of the financial services legislation, does he agree that there was also much concern? Bearing in mind that several heads of regulatory bodies report to it, what message does continuing to combine the roles of chairman and chief executive in the FSA send to the rest of British companies, which are under strong guidance to split those roles?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I indicated in my first Answer the difference between the FSA and the private sector. In the private sector, it is widely agreed that to split the role of chairman and chief

537
executive is correct because the interests of shareholders must be considered. It is generally thought that a non-executive chairman can fulfil that role. With the FSA there are of course no shareholders. Nothing that I have said should indicate that there is a settled view among Treasury Ministers that we will continue to combine the roles of chairman and chief executive. We said that we will review the matter and we will do so.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the Minister mind the following summary of his answers? Yesterday, he said that the Government would not conform with generally accepted accounting principles and today he says that the Government will not conform with generally accepted governnance principles. That is not a model of compliance, is it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yesterday, I said the exact opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, suggests. Yesterday, I said that the Government do conform with generally accepted accounting practice. Therefore the second part of his question does not arise.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the post of director of the London School of Economics, to which Sir Howard Davies is moving, is carefully balanced by that of the chairman of the court of governors? Does the noble Lord believe that the Government may want to take account of that model when considering Sir Howard's successors?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, far be it from me to intervene in the governance of the London School of Economics. No, I do not believe that there is any particular analogy between the two posts. I shall be interested to have Sir Howard's views on this matter in a few years' time.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we will have two repeated Statements this afternoon. The first, from my noble friend Lady Hollis, will be on occupational and private pensions and the second, when my noble friend Lord McIntosh will again be on his feet, will be on the transport investment plan. In order for the two Statements to run consecutively and so as to ensure that the Commons have finished their first Statement before we try to start our second—I am sure that that makes sense and is precise enough—we anticipate that the Statements will begin at four o'clock.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
Clause 3 [Licensing authorities]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 3, line 1, at end insert—
"( ) for purposes of personal licences, the central licensing authority"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 67, 379, 381 and 404.
I begin by putting at rest a few minds in the wider world. This group of amendments relates solely to the administering of personal licences I stress that because I understand that a frenzy of concern has spread among local authorities and others, who believe, as we do, in local democracy and accountability, that it is Her Majesty's Opposition who wish to centralise the administration of the whole licensing system. Not at all. The premises licences would be within the control of local authorities, unless Clause 8(6) is particularly sinister. However, the administration of personal licences would, we believe, be more sensibly managed by a central system, as was envisaged in the White Paper.
One of the features of individuals who may apply for personal licences is that they can move from place to place. A person may be born in Newcastle but may move to Bournemouth. However, under the Bill, if that person has been granted a personal licence by the local authority in Newcastle and wishes to renew his personal licence, he must apply to the local authority in Newcastle, not that in Bournemouth. The local authority in Newcastle may well have lost touch with this individual and know nothing about him. The chief officer of police in Newcastle may know nothing about that individual but he, not the chief officer of police in Bournemouth, must be notified of the application for the renewal. In other words, the wrong police officer, in our view, is being consulted. The problem arises because of the curious requirement that an application for the renewal of a personal licence must be made to the original licensing authority that granted the personal licence. That makes no sense whatever because the licensing authority that granted the personal licence in the first place and the chief officer of police in that area may have no knowledge of the individual concerned.
We believe that the better solution is for applications to be made to some central authority, such as the Secretary of State herself. She will of course delegate those tasks to officers within her department but it is important there is some central authority that grants those licences in much the same way as driving licences. The Secretary of State can then consult the chief officer of police in the area in which the applicant ordinarily resides.
The desirability of having a central authority to deal with personal licences has been widely recognised by the industry, police and local authorities. For example, the expenses that local authorities will incur when they undertake the role of licensing authority are already considerable. The setting up of an independent central authority would ease pressure on them as well as providing a more secure and accountable system for the granting of personal licences. The White Paper looked for a central register of licensees. The Bill, however, expects local authorities to administer personal licences, once granted by them throughout their duration, irrespective of where that person subsequently lives and works. Will the Government explain why, when they have been consistently lobbied on this issue and the point seems to me to be only common sense, they have failed to incorporate it into the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I rise to support the amendments and to speak to Amendment No. 67, to which my name is attached. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, outlined some of our problems with spreading personal licensing authorities among the 400 local authorities. The White Paper appeared to contain a sensible solution. Will the Minister explain exactly why the change was made? We see a number of problems with the move to local authorities. There are 400 authorities. Each would have to set up its own computer software to run the system. I realise that they will need to do that with premises licences, but to implement the system for personal licences they will have to design and man the software.
The provision gives the impression that one piece of software would be provided to local authorities. I am not aware of that happening. If local authorities are setting up their own software, there then arises a large question of compatibility, not with other local authority software because they will have to be compatible, but with the police computer software. I do not see how, under this proposal, there will be a linkage between the software used by the local authorities and the police register. All this information will have to be checked with the police in order for licensees to be granted personal licences in the time-scale set out.
There are further problems. It is not an extremely large job for a central register. We have calculated that between 300,000 and 400,000 personal licences would be issued. The original issue of that number of licences is a large job. After that it will be an ongoing process with few applications per week, which could be handled quite easily by a central registry. It will not take a vast amount of computer software. In fact, a scheme such as this could be run on a normal-sized PC.
However, we are very concerned about the costs to local authorities. Software developed to deal with public entertainment licences for some local authorities has cost around £100,000 per authority. If that is to be the case for every local authority—we are
540
talking about 40 authorities—that is £40 million being expended. The Minister may shake his head, but it is an issue of considerable concern to local authorities.
I do not understand the reasoning for the change between the White Paper, which everyone thought was workable and understandable, and the present system. I hope very much that the Minister can give a rational explanation and some direct evidence as to the cost involved for local authorities. This is an issue we feel extremely strongly about.
I also ask the Minister what consultation has been undertaken with the local authorities as regards setting up this computer system. Who will pay? Will the financial burden fall on the local authorities, and out of which budget will they meet that expenditure?
Lord Tope: This is the first time I have intervened in Committee. I begin by declaring the interests that I declared at Second Reading. I am a member of the London Assembly, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and, perhaps most relevant both to these amendments and to the Bill generally, for nearly 30 years I have represented a town centre ward on a London borough council.
It follows that I have spent most of my political life arguing strongly for the devolution of power to local authorities and to local democracy—indeed, that is the reason I support the principles of the Bill. Therefore, with a certain surprise I find myself rising to support this amendment that will take a proposed power away from local authorities and give it to a central authority. I hope the Minister will bear in mind that I do not do that lightly; I do it because I have very serious concerns about both the burden that will be placed on local authorities and—from long experience I know the answer to my noble friend's question—about who will bear the cost. That is fairly clear. The Minister can no longer say that it is covered in the SSA because we no longer have SSAs, we have FSSs.
My concern is the huge administrative burden. It may be okay if the personal licensee remains in the area and exercises that personal licence within the area of the local authority. As I understand it, the licence can apply throughout the country. The administrative burden is huge for a local authority, particularly for a smaller district council as distinct from a London borough council.
I, too, shall be interested to hear the Minister's answer as to why the Government have departed from what appeared to be their original intention and intend to put this considerable burden on local authorities rather than introduce the more sensible provision of a central licensing authority.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have listened with great care to everything that has been said. I listened with particular care to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who has such excellent experience in the area. I listened

541
to everyone else as well. But, as an ex-local councillor of a number of years' standing, I am allowed to give some preference to my local authority colleagues.
Baroness Buscombe: I also stood for the local authority.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not know that. I am sorry. I should have known. I start by correcting the history. The White Paper did not say anything different from the Bill. It said that local authorities would issue personal licences. In that sense, there has not been any change. That was the subject of consultation.
The first difficulty raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was the difficulty of keeping in touch as between the licence-holding authority and any changes. That is resolved very easily. The Bill provides that the authority that issues the licence retains responsibility for that licence. So people applying for personal licences to the licensing authority under the aegis of the local district council have an obligation to notify the authority of a conviction for a relevant offence. It will be an offence for them not to do so. The local authority will be required to keep a record of the particulars of the personal licence. Therefore, the personal licence will state that "Graham Tope is authorised by the London Borough of Sutton to sell alcohol in" such and such a place. It will be the London Borough of Sutton which retains the licence.
When the holder applies for renewal of the licence every 10 years, the application will be made to the original licensing authority. There is no question of it being moved to Richmond, Kingston or anywhere else. It will have retained the details of the personal licence. Again, it will be an offence for the personal licence holder not to inform the original licensing authority—the named licensing authority—of a conviction for a relevant offence. Where a court makes a conviction for a relevant offence, it will be under a duty to inform the original licensing authority. So all the details relating to an individual's licence history will be readily available to the licence authority whenever the licence is due to be renewed. There is no advantage in handling this matter centrally. It can perfectly well be done locally.
I have heard it argued that local authorities do not have any experience of issuing personal licences.
Lord Redesdale: I apologise. The Minister seems to be moving on to a separate issue. He says that there would be no advantage in handling the matter centrally. It is not our intention to suggest that personal licences should only be directed centrally. Obviously, there will be a local element. However, all it means is that the administrator in the local authority will need to get on to an Internet access to the central computer. That will cut down on many of our concerns.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In that case I totally misunderstood the amendment. The amendment, as I understand it, provides for a central licensing
542
authority to replace the local authority. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made that clear when she said that it is only for personal licences rather than premises licences that the amendment is being prepared.
If that is what the amendment intends to say, then my assurances to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. are very simple because the Bill provides for exactly what he wants. The Bill provides in Clause 8, subsections (6) and (7), that there can be a central database if that is what the local authorities want. There can be a system of linking local authority computer systems if that is what they want. Discussions have taken place with the Local Government Association about these systems, but the regime in the Bill works with or without a central register. If that is what the amendment proposed I could just sit down, but since it is not what it seeks, I had better continue with my argument.
My next point is this. I have heard it argued that local authorities do not have experience of issuing personal licences. But they do. Public entertainment licences issued by local authorities are held personally. They involve judgments by the local authority about the fitness of the applicant. Licences for mini-cab drivers, which involve checks on criminal backgrounds, are held locally. So there is nothing new in that.
The question of software then arose. I made it clear that there has been consultation with the Local Government Association about software. There is a possibility of combining software. There is no difficulty in ensuring that unnecessary duplication of methods does not occur. I can see no reason why additional expense should be incurred.
The whole question then arises as to the rights of the licensee. When the police want to object to a potential licensee because he has a conviction, the matter goes before the licensing authority for its final decision. Applicants are entitled to a hearing where, if they wish, they can argue their case against the police. Setting up a central licensing authority would be an expensive and cumbersome procedure because it would have to include arrangements for the authority to act as a tribunal with all the supporting administration for hearings. Local authorities are ready-made administrations. They already exist. Issuing licences is a business they know well. It simply would not be sensible or cost-effective to create a new authority with supporting administration and accommodation. I was surprised, particularly at the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that anybody should wish to have an extra cog in the government wheel with the additional bureaucracy.
The final point concerned cost. Again the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is in error. It is the intention of the system set out in the Bill that the costs bear directly on the licence applicant—the individual who will benefit from the service. It is fully established on the principle of full cost recovery through licence fees. Neither the council tax payer locally nor the taxpayer centrally should be made to pay in that way.

543
I hope that I have dealt with all the arguments advanced, whether or not it is intended that the central licensing authority should be in addition to the issue of licences by the local authority.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: Perhaps I did not make it plain that I envisaged information being kept by the local authority, though we believe it could be adequately dealt with through a central system.
I was interested in what the noble Lord said on the issue of costs. He raised the point that it would be a self-recovery scheme—a point he made in earlier debates. Does that mean that if one local authority finds it more expensive than another to issue a personal licence, it will be more expensive applying for the licence in one authority than in another?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That would clearly cause a great deal of trouble. Efforts will have to be made to ensure that local authorities do not do that in an extravagant way. I am sure that is possible.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to raise the matter of costs. The noble Lord said that they would be fully recoverable. But is enforcement against a person, if it is required, also covered? And what is the position if the person goes bankrupt?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I assume that a bankrupt would not be given a licence. I assume that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, means if a person subsequently became bankrupt. However, the fees are payable up-front.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: If there is any problem with the personal licence there will be enforcement costs. I am asking whether or not they are included in the recoverable costs. If so, who would they be recovered from if the individual had gone bankrupt afterwards?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall have to think about that. It is not immediately clear to me what "enforcement" costs are. The costs are for running a system to provide personal licences and for providing a hearing, when necessary, when a personal licence is applied for. Subsequent additions to the database, if made by the applicant who is notifying a subsequent conviction, for instance, will not involve significant additional costs. If the additions are made by the police it will not involve significant additional costs. If somebody is acting as though they had a licence when they do not, that will be a matter for law enforcement and not a matter for full cost recovery.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord did not answer the extraordinarily interesting question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, which was this. If the cost of granting a licence by Muddlecombe-under-Slosh is
544
£10—that would be recovered by Muddlecombe-under-Slosh Borough Council—and Burton-under-the-Widgewater Borough Council charges £35, how will that be balanced out? Who will be responsible for it and how will it work? The noble Lord failed to answer that question. Will he now please answer it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Forgive me for saying so but that is a relatively trivial question. Of course the costs of any service provided by a local authority can vary from one authority to another, for good reason and bad. Some variation in the charges made under cost recovery is entirely permissible. If there are extreme cases—in other words, if Muddlecombe-under-Slosh was charging 20 times what the neighbouring authority was charging—guidance would have to be issued.
In any case, let me make it clear that the cost recovery scheme does not apply only to personal licences. The administration of the licensing system covers the administration, inspection and enforcement of both personal and premises licences. It will not actually be possible to distinguish between the costs of premises and personal licences because the administration will be co-ordinated.
The Earl of Onslow: Could not the noble Lord simply have said that charges will vary from authority to authority because that is the way the system is set up. That is the correct answer to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, which very correctly the noble Lord has now given me.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Does the Minister see any parallel here with local authority search charges where in fact all local authorities are required to charge the same though the costs between different authorities are significantly different?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a useful parallel. I have already said that this is not a significant issue. There may be differences because of different circumstances. An administration set up for 10 licences a year will cost more per head than an administration set up for 10,000 licences a year. That is the nature of the beast.
Lord Redesdale: I apologise to the Minister but this will have a bearing on later stages of the Bill. We believed that the purpose of the Bill was to even out the licensing fees so that they were affordable throughout the country and the situation with regard to public entertainment licences was not reinstituted through this new authority. The Minister is now saying that the cost of personal and premises licences, through cost recovery—which is what geared up the cost of entertainment licences so massively in some London boroughs—could vary. What method is there for capping such variation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There may be some variation. If the variation is unacceptable the Secretary of State will have to deal with it. At present there is no

545
reason for concern. The Secretary of State will need to set a range of acceptable fees which will not give exact cost recovery but close enough to cost recovery to relieve the fear expressed when the amendment was moved, that is, that it would put a huge burden on the ratepayer.
The fees would be set in bands by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State could include a geographical element. The Secretary of State could say, for example, that central London borough licences would be different from those in rural areas or that licences in the South East could be different from those in the North West. There are all sorts of possibilities.
The fears expressed were profound. I sought to show that they were unjustified. The small differences between the cost of one licence and that of another do not justify the extreme provisions that would be brought in by the amendments.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response to the group of amendments. More than anything, it has been worthwhile to explore the issues. That is particularly so, given the desire of so many beyond your Lordships' House—the industry, the police and local authorities—to see some form of central authority to handle the administration of personal licences, which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, rightly described as more of a burden.
We believe that, as the Bill stands, the system will rely very much on the ability of different local authorities to keep records up to date, sometimes over a period of many years. There could be several issues that one might call "unsavoury" that attach to an individual in one part of the country that might not attach to his record in another part of the country. That is unsatisfactory, given the enormous responsibility that attaches to someone who has the advantage of a personal licence. Several good questions were raised about cost. The Minister says that that is not a significant issue, but, to those who have to pay, it is significant.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. We will think further, with care, and read in Hansard what was said. For now, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
3.45 p.m.
Clause 4 [General duties of licensing authorities]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 3, line 10. at end insert—
"( ) the protection of the quality of life of communities;"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 68, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 70 and 71.
Amendments Nos. 68 and 70 would add a further licensing objective to those in Clause 4(2); namely,
"the protection of the quality of life of communities".
I tabled Amendment No. 68, which is closely related to Amendment No. 70 on public nuisance, in the hope that the Minister would enlighten the Committee on the account that the Government think should be taken of the needs of local communities and their quality of life, when it comes to the exercise of local authorities' licensing functions under the Bill.
Members of the Committee who attended the briefing given by representatives of local authorities, which was chaired by my noble friend Lady Hanham, will have seen and heard the great impact that licensed premises can have on the quality of life of communities, not just in London but throughout the country. However, it is not made clear in the Bill that the needs of those communities will have to be taken into account by licensing authorities, when they exercise their functions. So that the Government's thinking can be made clear, I tabled this amendment and Amendment No. 70, which relates to the third of the licensing objectives:
"the prevention of public nuisance".
It is a probing amendment, which seeks clarification from the Government of what they mean when they refer in subsection (2)(c) to,
"the prevention of public nuisance".
When I first read the Bill, I found that to be one of the most intriguing pieces of the Government's drafting. As the Committee will be aware, public nuisance is a tort, under the civil law, and a criminal offence at common law. One example of public nuisance in the criminal context is the 1992 case of Ruffell, which is reported in the 13th volume of the Criminal Appeal Reports (Sentencing) at page 204. in that case, the offence of public nuisance was charged because the offender organised an acid house party in unsuitable premises that was attended by a large number of people. A road leading to the site was blocked by traffic; local residents were disturbed by noise throughout the night; and litter and excrement were deposited in adjoining woodlands.
Undoubtedly, that is the sort of unacceptable public nuisance that, one hopes, would not be associated with premises or individuals licensed under the Bill. However, the definition of public nuisance is very broad. In the case of The Attorney-General v. PYA Quarries Limited, reported in the official Law Reports 1957 (Queen's Bench Division) at page 169 of the second volume, Lord Justice Romer stated:
"Any nuisance is public which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects. The sphere of the nuisance may be described generally as `the neighbourhood', but the question whether the local community within that sphere comprises a sufficient number of persons to constitute a class of the public is a question of fact in every case.
It is not necessary in my judgment to prove that every member of the class has been injuriously affected. It is sufficient to show that a representative cross-section of the class has been so affected for an injunction to issue".
I hope that the Minister will enlighten the Committee on the sorts of activity that the Government envisage when they refer to "public nuisance". Do they intend the definition of public nuisance developed by the courts, which has applied in the same form for several hundred years, to apply in the context of the Bill? If they do, does Clause 4(2)(c) mean that licensing authorities will be required to take steps to prevent anything that,
"affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life"
of communities? That is what my amendment would also require.
It is not immediately clear from the Explanatory Notes prepared by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the Government intend the definition developed by the courts to apply. Paragraph 38 of the Explanatory Notes states:
"The third licensing objective, the prevention of public nuisance, will not extend to every activity which annoys another person but will cover behaviour which, when balanced against the public interest, is found to be unacceptable".
That does not go into the detail that the courts have done, when defining what is a public nuisance. In particular, it does not mention the kinds of issues of definition relating to communities and sections of the public that Lord Justice Romer did in the judgment that I quoted. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will clarify the situation and provide the Committee with a more complete version of the Government's position on Clause 4(2)(c) than her department could—I say that with respect—in the Explanatory Notes.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 71, upon which, I know the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will expand. The amendment proposes another option to describe more specifically the licensing objectives. There has been much concern about the vagueness of licensing objectives, as stated in the Bill, particularly, as I have said, as regards the third objective—the prevention of public nuisance.
The definition of public nuisance is, as I said, open to broad interpretation. The amendment would clarify the matter by stressing the need for balance between the interests of local communities and the leisure industry. It is an important balance, and we must strike it. I beg to move.
Viscount Falkland: I speak to Amendments Nos. 69, 71 and 72, which stand in my name. They follow neatly Amendment No. 68 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The largest amount of post to cross our desks in relation to this sophisticated and complex legislation has been concerned with this issue. A problem that is perceived may arise is the effect on amenities and on the lives of residents resulting from any increase in the use of premises licensed for the sale of alcohol and the provision of entertainment.
Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 introduce further licensing objectives. Their purpose is to ensure that any difficulty which may arise out of licensed premises or, indeed, a concentration of licensed premises in any location, should be taken into account when
548
applications are considered. The amenities referred to are not simply residential. They concern many other factors contributing to quality of life, including theatres, cinemas and other businesses.
Demographic trends demonstrate that our population is growing older and that more people seek quiet and uninterrupted enjoyment of leisure and home life. At the same time, life for young people is very lively. The Bill seeks to establish a balance. It is clear from our postbags that there is no difference between the aims of the Government in introducing the legislation, of which we broadly approve, and all those who are affected—local authorities, individuals or businesses.
At this stage, there is no intention to force a Division. Through the opaqueness of the legislation—if I may put it that way—we understand the intention of the Government, and we approve. But there is much that needs to be teased out and explained. It is complicated legislation. Unlike the noble Baroness who preceded me, I am not a lawyer. I expect to be followed with alacrity by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who has helped draft the amendment, but I am advised that the term "public nuisance" is likely to be given a narrow meaning by the courts when applied to the legislation.
I am mindful of the comments of many lawyers on these Benches—some present and some not—who have said that clearly the legislation has been drafted by lawyers. As such we understand it; but it will be a lawyer's paradise when unscrambling some of the complexities which arise from it. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury to raise those matters.
Surely, from a layman's point of view—and I stress layman, for that is what I am—there should be proper explanation in the Bill of what will be objected to by residents and others should trouble occur. There needs to be a better explanation of what should be taken into account should complaints ensue. The ease with which those complaints can be made will be dealt with later. The noble Baroness specifically mentioned a case which I hope is unusual. My mother-in-law lives in a city quite near London in a semi-pedestrianised area that is surrounded by many pubs and places of entertainment and where, under the present regime, a great deal of trouble is caused to residents.
People may not know that for drinking to be extended to two o'clock there must be an entertainment licence and, often, food is provided. Generally, it is a completely different clientele from that which normally goes to pubs. This legislation improves the situation which exists at the moment. In a way, it is a problem created by the Government. Historically and culturally, pubs are the place where people choose to relax, drink alcohol—sensibly, one hopes—and meet friends. Because of the requirement that after a certain time it is necessary to obtain an extension to have drink and food, publicans have been forced to attract a totally different clientele, a broader

549
age group of people and it is true that an element of binge drinking across the board before closing time causes problems in some areas. The problems arising now occur late at night when people start to dance and drink having already consumed a large quantity of alcohol. They create a great deal of "nuisance" in the way that I understand it, but perhaps not in the way that the law understands it.
It is curious that in a pedestrian area where people leave places in the early hours of the morning, if their mood is good, they will sing. But sometimes they will shout to each other, and that wakes people up. That is had enough, but it is not as bad as it might be because usually those people are on the move. When singing, they are on the move. Domestic squabbles—in the broadest possible sense—are a great problem. Those who have not had a good evening or who have fallen out with their partner will have a loud altercation in the street. An altercation in the street means that people stop now and again, possibly for a long period, to state their views. That is very difficult for residents, and it is a nuisance. Residents can shout or throw water from the windows. But that will not necessarily move noisy people and there will be some reaction. That is just one area of nuisance.
Members of the Committee can laugh; it is perhaps funny in the way I tell it. But in the middle of the night, to an old or sick person or where there is a baby to consider, that behaviour is difficult to bear. The police may intervene, although not necessarily. Kicking cans and bottles is a nuisance, as is people jumping into cars outside the pedestrian areas, banging doors and sounding horns to one another because shouting is not enough. That may not be general behaviour but only two or three people need to be involved to destroy the night of the whole community in that area.
Many Members of the Committee will know of motor vehicles which after a certain hour are turned by "certain" people—I shall describe them no further—into mobile entertainment centres. The noise level is the loudest possible. Psychologists may say that perhaps they want to draw attention to themselves or to release tension, but it is murder for those who live in the vicinity, particularly the old and the sick.
I give these descriptions only because we need to discuss what is a nuisance and what is a disturbance to local people. The throwing about of traffic cones and dustbins is common and has gone on for ever. It is usually over quickly and need not be noisy. However, the other activities are noisy. Indeed, nowadays people—young and old—are less considerate of their fellows than used to be the case. I refer to the way they bang doors shut and so forth. I see the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, shaking his head. He obviously believes that this is a new phenomenon—
The Earl of Onslow: No, I do not. I believe that it is an old phenomenon.
Viscount Falkland: In any event, it is a disturbing phenomenon, which needs to be dealt with.
550
I will now resume my seat, having described what a layman sees as a variety of nuisances and disturbances which may not be covered by the Bill. I hope that the Government will be more precise and exact in dealing with the problems and that they will satisfy local people's concerns about what will happen when the Bill becomes law.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I have named after me a pub called "The Onslow Arms". Unfortunately, my father sold it for an extraordinarily small sum of money about 20 years ago. Therefore, I do not have an interest to declare. However, I visit the pub, and I have noticed that the clientele varies during the evening. The clientele at seven o'clock is different from that at nine, ten or eleven o'clock. Furthermore, there are different types of people in different types of pub. That point was well made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
There is nothing new about people behaving badly because they have had too much to drink. I confess that on return to this country on a troop ship in—well, practically before God—we used to get rather tight at dinner in the officers' mess. Every evening, we would walk around the deck in our mess dress and ceremonially bury over the side a British India. Steam Navigation Company deckchair, thinking that we were terribly funny.
People in youth have behaved like that for ever. That is why I was disagreeing with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I do not believe that the problem is new; it is one of privacy versus public: interest and of individuals versus the general desirability. In fact, it is NIMBY versus the rest. It is an incredibly difficult problem to balance.
The problem should be addressed at the lowest possible level of decision-making. We no longer like local magistrates, which is a pity, so we are giving the decision to licensing authorities. They can weigh up the balances between them. I disagree with the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Buscombe and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, not because I disagree with their aims but because I believe it impossible accurately to define this animal.
Clause 4(2) states:
"The licensing objectives are … the prevention of crime and disorder … public safety".
What is the difference? It continues:
"the prevention of public nuisance; and … the protection of children from harm".
All those intentions can be encapsulated in one subsection. Clause 4(2) tries to be too definitional, if that is the right word.
The Army Act contains a wonderful clause which relates to,
"conduct … to the prejudice of good order and military discipline".
Everyone knows what it is because it stares them in the face when an individual case appears; but it is almost impossible to define.

551
I suggest that instead of giving an increasingly detailed description—the more detailed the description, the more restrictive it becomes—there should be a clause on,
"conduct … to the prejudice of good order and military discipline"
That would make matters clear to the licensing authorities which should then be able to weigh in the balance the interests of, say, Mrs Bloggs and the pop group next door, both of whom have reasonable and real objectives.
I personally take a view opposite to that of my noble friends—I use the word "personally", not necessarily politically in that context because I believe that it is the way we should go.
Lord Borne: I disagree with the conclusion drawn by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, as regards the suggested amendments. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, with a great deal of sympathy for what they were saying. Of course, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that the issue of people enjoying themselves regardless of the people in the neighbourhood is not new. But certain features are new and some of them were emphasised most clearly by the noble Viscount. I may summarise it as "amplified" noise or music, which is fairly new.
There is a great deal of sympathy on this side of the Chamber—I speak before the Minister—with the view that there should be a stronger provision in the Bill requiring the licensing authorities to strike a proper balance between those who are engaged in drinking and being entertained, and local residents. But it is a major problem.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on giving us the benefit of her researches into "public nuisance". I suggest that the jurisprudence for case law on the subject is not helpful because most of it is out of date and does not obviously deal with modern problems, many examples of which were given by her and the noble Viscount. A stronger provision is therefore needed.
The noble Baroness quoted from the Explanatory Notes:
"The third licensing objective, the prevention of public nuisance, will not extend to every activity which annoys another person but will cover behaviour which, when balanced against the public interest, is found to be unacceptable".
What does that mean? It can mean anything. It is almost as bad as the Manual of Military Law phrase, to which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, directed our attention. We want something clear in relation to the interests of those in the neighbourhood, local amenities and so forth.
I am not able to distinguish between the different amendments, but I ask my noble friend to take the matter away and come back with a provision which will help to ensure that the licensing authorities have a
552
clear understanding of the different interests involved and have something more solid than the vague phrase contained in the Bill.
Lord Cobbold: The important word in this discussion is "balance". Amendment No. 71 tries to define that in more elaborate terms, whereas the simple term "public nuisance" gives a wider element of discretion to the licensing authorities. I share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that it is better that the decision about balance and the element of public nuisance should be made at the local authority licensing level. Their members will have local knowledge and they will be able to judge whether the balance is tipped one way or the other.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: Amendment No. 77, standing in my name, is included in this group of amendments. It seeks to add the words,
"the protection of residential amenity"
to the licensing objectives of the Bill.
I became very concerned earlier when I heard legal precedents being quoted. I certainly would not be able to comment on them. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, reminded us of Section 40 of the Army Act—"conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline"—which rang a bell. Being so familiar with charge 252 of that section of the Army Act may tell the Committee a little about my past!
Leaving that aside, other amendments in this group, in particular Amendment No. 68, seek to place the importance of the rights of residents within a community to enjoy security and peace in their homes, their streets and their communities as an objective of the proposed legislation. I speak in support of Amendment No. 68 and I shall not move my Amendment No. 77, as Amendment No. 68 goes wider than the terms of my amendment.
I believe that if this objective is not clearly spelt out, it will be difficult for people in communities—that is what we are talking about; not legal precedents but people in their homes suffering, sometimes night after night—to have very much confidence in what is being proposed. We have to say that part of the objective is the protection of their peace and their right to live peacefully in their home.
By including the protection of the community as an objective, it will enable the local authority—the licensing authority in this case—more easily to take into account the effects on the local environment, including parks, streets and residences. Local authorities in areas right across the country face a constant struggle, especially at weekends, to get people away from the town centre late at night. There are often few night buses. In the area I know best, Camden, they run at the rate of one an hour. Demand for licensed taxis and minicabs in the area outstrips the supply.
No one can deny the problems caused in many parts of the country by a minority of irresponsible people leaving pubs and clubs. It happens not just in town centres. Since the publication of these amendments, I

553
have received correspondence from people in rural areas as well as from people in city centres who are suffering from these problems. It can be anywhere in our country where licensed premises are close to people's homes. The hanging about, waiting for some form of transport, and the attendant problems of noise, litter and anti-social behaviour bring real misery to those who suffer from those who cause the problems.
Discussion has already taken place about the definition of "nuisance". You have only to ask a person who has had someone do foul things on their doorstep what is a nuisance—they will soon tell you. The serious nuisance of urination and vomit in walkways, in doorways, and the ever-present problem in some areas of drug abuse and serious assault are real issues for far too many people in our communities. Do not take my word for it. Go through some of the estates where people walk past other people's homes from the pub, club, or wherever they have been, and do these dreadful things.
For many years I lived on a housing estate in an area where I was also one of the local councillors. It was 20 years ago, but the problems I refer to today were evident then. From discussions I have had recently with people from local authorities, it is abundantly clear that the problems are very much worse today.
I believe that licensing authorities need to have as part of their duties the additional objective suggested in the amendment. They must have as a central part of their responsibilities the right of the community to live in peace.
I have mentioned the very real problems of drug offences and serious assaults. In Camden, where the police and the local authority work very closely and have made these priority issues, there are only two police officers stationed in the Camden Town area between midnight and 6 a.m. It would be interesting to know how many licensed premises already operate in the area.
I would ask the Minister to consider these amendments sympathetically. They do no more than make as an objective of the Bill what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said last Thursday in Committee. Referring to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, he said that,
"residents are entitled to the right to enjoy their possessions in peace".—[Official Report, 12/12/02; col. 407.]
The homes, the streets, the communities are possessions of people, who deserve and want no more than that: the right to protection and a peaceful life.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I believe that if this Bill is passed as currently drafted it will be a catastrophe for national amenity. I wholly agree with everyone who has spoken so far, and even with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who I believe managed to misrepresent his own position, because I do not think that he is content with the Bill as it stands.
554
The law as it stands does not afford sufficient protection to those who wish for normal sleep. Yet if the Bill is passed, with its encouragement of 24-hour licences and the statement in the framework document,
"the vast majority of these registrations"—
meaning licensed premises registrations—
"should be automatic"—
the effect will be altogether inadequate. We have the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Noise Act 1996, and the law of private nuisance—which will not be admitted under the test in Clause 4 of the Bill because that is only public nuisance—and yet many thousands, nay millions, of people would say that the present protections are inadequate between the current hours of permitted drinking.
Perhaps I may quote from a document supplied by the Meard and Dean Street Residents' Association. It is a statement by the Director of Planning and Transportation of Westminster City Council on this very point. He said this,
"The enforcement powers the City Council is able to use … against noise inside or outside premises are limited to action against statutory noise nuisance … The usefulness of this power in protecting residential amenity is limited. Noise, which is plainly audible inside a property, may not necessarily constitute a noise nuisance; and many sources of street noise are inherently transient and therefore not amenable to conventional enforcement action".
I am sure that other Members of the Committee have, like me, sought to curtail noise at eleven or twelve at night. The only thing that works in the part of London in which I live is if I go down in my pyjamas, into the pub and up to the manager. That does cause a minor stir! If, in such a state, you ask very politely whether they might not turn the noise down, you do tend to get a rather shocked and co-operative response. Frankly, that is a rather extremist cause to pursue. The point I emphasise is that it is the early-hours drinking—which will not only be permitted but encouraged by the new regime—that will cause chaos, particularly in the provincial and rural parts of the kingdom.
It is not anti-social or disorderly or drunken behaviour that we are talking about here. It is merely normal behaviour. It is normal noise at abnormal times that will constitute the most severe disruption to sleep. I venture to suggest that there are few in this House, having the benefit of a country retreat which is next to or near a pub, who can look upon these proposals with equanimity.
I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, who made the point that public nuisance is enough for local authorities to judge, to the remarks sagely made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Perhaps I may give one or two specific instances which I raised at Second Reading. It is public nuisance to carry on an offensive trade—we are not talking about that. We are talking about a normal trade, normally pursued; nothing anti-social; merely the opening and closing of car doors at three in the morning; people saying goodnight to each other across

555
the car park and getting in and driving away. That is enough to waken a sizeable proportion of the population.
Public nuisance is a disorderly house—we are not talking about that. It is acid house parties—we are not talking about them. As has been said—the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, a distinguished lawyer, confirmed the point—the threshold at which public nuisance bites is far higher than the amenity that we are all seeking to preserve.
Perhaps I may detain the Committee a little further in regard to some of the particularities of the Bill. So far we have largely been dealing with generalisations but I should like to explain to the Committee, and convince the Minister, that there must be change.
Clause 18 refers to "Determination of application for premises licence" and sets out the basis upon which any member of the public may make an objection to the granting of a premises licence. It states that the licensing authority,
"must grant the licence … subject only to … such conditions as are consistent with the operating schedule".
You have to look at Clause 17(4)(b) to see what that is about. Clause 17(4)(b) states that the operating schedule must include,
"the times during which it is proposed that the relevant licensable activities are to take place".
Any licensee or brewer with any sense will apply for a 24-hour licence, which is what the framework document tells us we should be pushing for. The Minister shakes her head. She will have her turn; I have got mine. I believe that that is what most people will apply for—not because they intend to open their pubs for 24 hours a day but because now and then they may want to and do not want to go back to the licensing authority to be able to do so. Now and then a big coach party will come in at 10 o'clock at night; people will be drinking heavily at 12 o'clock, one o'clock, two o'clock and the profits will be rolling in. The licensee will wish to stay open, and who can blame him?
The Bill goes on to state that the only public objections which can be made to the licensing authority are those which are defined as "relevant representations". Those are themselves confined to representations about the likely effect of the grant of a premises licence on the promotion of the licensing objectives. This is a long way round to make absolutely plain that unless we change the licensing objectives there is no effective power of objection to the grant of a 24-hour licence. The licensing objectives refer only to public nuisance, and that is wholly inadequate to protect against ordinary conduct which is conducted at unordinary times to the detriment of local amenity.
I commend Amendment No. 71, in which I had a hand, because that seeks to balance the needs of residential amenity with the needs of leisure amenity, and puts it specifically in those terms. It is always difficult to define such inherently indefinable things as "leisure amenity" and "residential amenity", but the
556
law of England is littered with such general tests. The common law is built upon such general tests and the law of nuisance is built upon such indeterminate tests.
Unless Amendment No. 71, or something very close to it, is incorporated, the Bill will destroy, in a way that many noble Lords may not realise, any power of reasonable objection on the part of any member of the public when any of these licences come up for review. That is why in opening I said that this would be a catastrophe for local amenity and would ultimately rebound on both us, as legislators, and on the licensing trade.
Lord Monson: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Perhaps I should point out to my noble friend Lord Cobbold and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that if you devolve decision making in this matter down to local authority level as they urge—and with which I do not disagree—you will get a much more restrictive policy in place than otherwise would be the case. This is for the simple reason that there are far more people on the electoral rolls who want a good night's sleep than people who want to drink in clubs and pubs until two or three o'clock in the morning. I do not disagree with such restrictions, but it is worth bearing in mind.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My name appears on Amendment No. 69 below that of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland; on Amendment No. 72 likewise; and Amendment No. 445 stands in my name alone. I shall not detain the Committee long—we have had a decent debate already—but my brevity should not be interpreted as a lack of vehemence on the subject. I do not have any emotional capital tied up in the particular wordings of the various amendments in front of the Committee, but I do wish to comment briefly on all three which stand in my name.
In regard to Amendment No. 69, I can well remember when I was the Member of Parliament for the Cities of London and Westminster the representations made to me by the West End theatres about the effect on the amenities of theatre-goers of the surrounding circumstances throughout the West End. Of course they were particularly pre-occupied with the issue of drugs, but that is covered under Clause 4(2)(a). On the other hand, the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, of littering and fouling, both have a detrimental effect on theatre-goers and reduce the attractiveness of the theatre to them. If my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber was in his place, I am certain that he would say much more to the same effect.
As to Amendment No. 72, there is no way in which I can improve on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Had I spoken before him rather than after, I would have likewise quoted the Westminster remarks, notably in regard to the narrow definition that the courts put on public nuisance in the Environment Protection Act 1990 and the hazard that we will get into if that becomes the broad portmanteau phrase in this Bill.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to the other aspects of ambient noise. It is worth reminding the Committee that the Noise Abatement Society

557
believes that 80 per cent of the trouble caused by people attending licensed premises occurs either when they are arriving at them or leaving them. Those are very much the kind of noises to which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred.
Amendment No. 445 is simply a belt and braces addition to the definitions. As I said, I have no emotional capital tied up in the particular definition of "public nuisance" recorded, but it is no bad thing that "public nuisance" should be defined at that point in the Bill.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I add one marker to Amendment No. 71 in relation to its reference to "working amenity". The Bill has a long way to go but, as time goes on, the definition of "working amenity" will have to include reference to the effect on people working in the industry of the much longer hours that everyone will have to work. The example has been given of bar staff trying to get home at two o'clock in the morning and young women on their own not being able to find transport and so on. It is not clear whether some of these points can be picked up within the framework of the legislation, but certainly the detriment to the community of commotion outside pubs and so on involves staff working in the pubs. Will the Minister give some thought as to whether, in broad terms, the magistrates or the licensing authorities will have enough powers? The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that they are unable easily to enforce their powers at the moment, but will they have enough powers to deal with the kind of matters which will arise as a consequence of the radical change in our social behaviour caused by the so-called 24-hour culture?
Lord Tope: When I declared my interests I said that I have represented a town centre area on a London borough council for nearly 30 years. In fact, within the ward I represent there are more licensed premises than in the whole of the remainder of that London borough put together. I could repeat, and probably exaggerate, the many horror stories that we have heard in the debate. All I will say is that I strongly recommend my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury not to go in to a Sutton town centre pub on a Friday night in his pyjamas. It would certainly do nothing for public peace and quiet.
We have all described problems of public nuisance and disorder, but these occur not only in the immediate vicinity of licensed premises. In a sense, if you live, or choose to live, very close to a licensed premises, to some extent you accept that that is a consequence of living there. The problem, certainly from my experience in urban areas, comes at dispersal time for people who live not in the immediate vicinity of licensed premises but in the surrounding area. The Government should consider the surrounding area rather than the immediate vicinity because residents who live some distance from licensed premises suffer greatest nuisance from the kind of noise and anti-social behaviour that has been described, or even from quite normal behaviour that would not be noticed at seven or eight o'clock in the evening but which is
558
extremely audible and a considerable nuisance at two or three o'clock in the morning. That is the concern we have.
I have very considerable sympathy for all the concerns expressed during the debate. However, in addition, I almost have concerns for the interests of the industry itself. That is why I prefer Amendment No. 71, the only amendment that refers to the need for balance, which I accept is important. I do not believe that any of us in this debate are arguing for local residents to have a right of veto over a licence application. I understand very well the industry's concerns about what the Minister in her letter to me described as over-zealous local authorities or licensing authorities.
From long experience, I say to the Government that local authorities are also planning authorities and that most, if not all, local councillors have very considerable experience of dealing with difficult, locally contentious planning applications, which, for good planning reasons, have to be granted despite the often very vociferous objections from the local residents whom they are elected to represent. That kind of situation is not unknown, I suggest, to any local councillor.
Most local authorities make sensible planning decisions most of the time. One reason for that is that they know that if they go with the wishes of the residents against planning guidance, they will face appeals. They know that they will have to defend their planning decisions on appeal—often an expensive business—and that if they turn down planning consent on frivolous grounds, costs may be awarded against them. That places a very considerable inhibition on local councillors who have to deal with vociferous objections from residents. I suggest that, though the planning environment is not exactly the same as the licensing environment, the considerations affecting both will be very similar.
I say to the industry and the Government that, though I understand very well the concerns about over-zealous licensing authorities—or, perhaps put more politely, local councillors who pay proper and close regard to the wishes of the people who have elected them—they will in practice be much less likely to arise because of the checks and balances that are in place.
In her letter to me, which I received today, the Minister quite rightly referred to the points that we have made about the balances in the Bill and said that she would be prepared to consider them and, if necessary, make them more explicit. In the light of today's debate, I hope that the Minister will feel able to do that. I do not believe that any of the amendments tabled today are likely to be pressed. However, we shall all look forward to the Government saying on Report that they have listened to our points, that they are able to make the safeguards more explicit, and that, from the point of view of all Members of the Committee who have spoken, they can tilt the balance a little more in favour of local residents than appears to be the case on the face of the Bill at present.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I apologise for intervening. I have put my name to two amendments and I have only one short question to ask. Many Members of the Committee have described numerous potential nuisance situations that take place outside licensed premises. In that respect, will the Minister indicate how far local authorities will be guided to take into account the area to be licensed?
I ask that question particularly because we are discussing the licensing objectives, which also relate to other parts of the Bill. In the case of a temporary licence, who would be responsible for ensuring that the criteria are met? For example, if carol singing takes place in a shop, is the shop owner the licensee? If it takes place in a public park, is the local authority the licensee? It seems to me that if the local authority granted itself a licence and also tried to fulfil those objectives, there would be a conflict of interests. Perhaps I have totally misunderstood that section of the Bill. However, I should be grateful for the Minister's answer.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may beg him not to apologise for intervening. His interventions are almost always valuable. Please do not apologise for one's own abilities.
Baroness Blackstone: I hope the Committee will find it acceptable if I take a little time to respond to the debate, first, because I take very seriously many of the issues that have been raised and, secondly, because the noble Viscount Lord Falkland said that by far the largest part of his mail concerned this issue. We need to resolve a number of misunderstandings, and I hope to shed some light on the issues in the hope of achieving greater clarity.
I was disappointed to hear one of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who always talks such good sense. He said that he advised his noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury not to turn up at his local pub in his pyjamas. As I live fairly near the noble Lord, I had hoped to turn up at his local pub with my camera and wait for a big din and for the noble Lord to appear. However, perhaps he will be discouraged by his noble friend.
Each of the amendments in this group, although expressed rather differently, has a similar intention. They all address the issue of the cumulative effect of a large number of pubs, clubs and other licensed premises concentrated in one area and the nuisance that may arise as a result. As various speakers in this debate have pointed out, nuisance can take a variety of forms, some of which may be quite innocently generated. But let me start with the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on public nuisance.
We have to remember that the word "nuisance" in the Bill refers to noise and other nuisance caused directly from the licensed premises concerned.
560
However, we have strayed rather a long way from that concept. Urination in public, turning car radios to their maximum volume and all kinds of other unpleasant behaviour—
The Earl of Onslow: I thank the Minister for giving way. She makes a very important point. Does nuisance arising out of licensed premises cover the slamming of car doors by people leaving the licensed premises, or does it arise after they have left? That is a perfect example of how the difference may be defined. We all want to achieve the same end; the question is how we get there. I should be grateful for the Minister's help on that point.
Baroness Blackstone: I was about to come to that. In responding to this debate, perhaps I could ask for the help of Members of the Committee. If I can be allowed to answer questions rather than being interrupted all the time, we shall make quicker progress.
We are not focusing on all the unpleasant behaviour, either during the day or late at night, that has been referred to. If customers behave badly after they leave the licensee's control, they are personally responsible for their actions and have to be dealt with in various other ways, with which I shall deal in a moment. Licensing law concerns the placing of duties on licensees. Therefore, we have to understand that it does not make any sense to require licensees to deal with nuisance once customers are outside their control.
I turn to the legal points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The judgments that she cited have developed on a case by case basis. Yes, we do expect case law developed to date to be applied here. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that it would not be appropriate to provide a rigid meaning as to what constitutes a public nuisance. I strongly agree here with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
The balance referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is precisely that which will be applied in the Bill. What may constitute a public nuisance will obviously vary from case to case. It would be quite inappropriate to seek to give it a completely rigid meaning. Being precise would either exclude a case which, on any analysis, would give rise to public nuisance or might include an instance which the public—residents living in the vicinity of licensed premises—do not consider causes a nuisance. It is right that the objective of the prevention of public nuisance can be considered against individual circumstances.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Borrie and many other speakers in the debate are jumping the gun. Many of the points they wish to raise should be made when, later in the Session, we discuss the Bill that will be introduced to deal with anti-social behaviour.
Licensing regimes place obligations on licensees to control behaviour in their premises. The problems of behaviour in the street, at the borders of the community, are a matter of personal responsibility and accountability before the law in a variety of

561
different respects. The Government will introduce a whole raft of measures to address the anti-social behaviour that has been described. I have every sympathy with those who do not want to see that kind of behaviour and want it dealt with. But I do not believe that this is the right Bill in which to do that.
The Government are committed to ensuring that licensing authorities have the powers to address disorder and nuisance which arise from the carrying on of licensable activities. The Bill puts together measures which are designed for that purpose. Members of the Committee will perhaps forgive me. In a sense, I am returning to issues that were raised at Second Reading, but I think it necessary in the light of today's debate.
First, the Bill expands the existing court powers, on application by the police, to close all licensed premises within a specified geographical area for up to 24 hours where disorder is occurring or indeed is anticipated. These powers presently apply to premises selling alcohol but are being expanded to include, for example, all entertainment venues—theatres, cinemas, night cafes and takeaway outlets—that operate late at night. The current powers in Section 188 of the Licensing Act 1964 are under-used by the police, particularly in the context of anticipated disorder arising from events such as football matches or public demonstrations.
Secondly, the Bill expands the police powers that we introduced in December 2001 to close down disorderly and excessively noisy pubs, night clubs, restaurants and hotels instantly for up to 24 hours. Under the Bill, these powers will now apply to all entertainment premises—concert halls, theatres, cinemas, indoor sporting events, night cafes and night takeaways—and will extend to temporary events such as one-off raves. These are powerful deterrents on premises likely to cause serious disturbances in the community.
Next. we shall be abolishing the fixed and artificially early closing times which provoke binge drinking and result in large numbers of young men hitting the street simultaneously, causing the police enormous difficulty. The peaks of disorder immediately after the current fixed closing times of 11 p.m. and 2 a.m. (3 a.m. in the West End of London) should be substantially reduced by a more gradual and orderly dispersal of customers.
We shall be providing a new mechanism for reviewing licences when any problems arise, backed by an extended range of sanctions, rather than the current practice of having to await renewals before any action can be taken. We shall be including in the range of sanctions a temporary or permanent reduction in trading hours and suspension of licences, allowing the licensing authority to hit the profits of businesses causing problems in the community rather than merely dealing with individuals.
We are strengthening the laws on the sale of alcohol to, and its consumption by, under-age children, removing the proliferation of exemptions that presently exist. We are extending the offence of permitting disorderly conduct on licensed premises to all premises licensed under the Bill, all entertainment
562
venues, all qualifying clubs, theatres, cinemas, concert halls, indoor sports arenas, all-night cafes and late-night takeaways. We are requiring the management and staff of such premises to assist the police in expelling drunk and disorderly persons from the premises. We are enabling the police to seek court orders banning the sale of alcohol on train routes either temporarily or permanently.
The Earl of Onslow: I hesitate to intervene, but are we not concentrating on the object of the Bill—in other words, the object of the licensing authorities? The noble Baroness's remarks are concerned entirely with the consequences of that. Surely it is best to clear our minds of any consequences of a breach of the aim and get the aim totally clear in our mind; namely, the duty of the licensing authority.
If I am totally wrong—I do not think that I am—there is practically no difference among anyone in this Chamber as to the aims. Our difficulty is in defining those aims, and how we achieve them. We know in our heads what they are but we cannot see them on paper. I wish that the noble Baroness—I know she is trying to help the Committee—would concentrate on that issue rather than on matters with which we shall deal later, and rightly so.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: No, I profoundly disagree with the noble Earl on this occasion, having agreed with him earlier. We had a debate on the first day of Committee on the objectives of the Bill. I do not believe that the noble Earl was in his place. I believe that we have to stick to the debate that we are having now. I remind noble Lords that this is Committee stage. I am trying to provide, in as simple and short a form as possible, the range of ways in which the Bill deals with the possible cumulative effect of a number of different licensed premises in one small area. That is what these amendments are about and what we should be focusing on.
Finally, we are extending police powers to confiscate alcohol in designated public places. on which the Home Office has been assisting us—a point that is relevant to some of the concerns raised.
That said, I have listened carefully to the arguments. We need to find a balance, as the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold said, that addresses the very real concerns of licensing authorities and some local residents, while not hindering those who want to go about their business in a perfectly law-abiding way, providing employment in local economies and amenities for the local community.
This is about the delicate balance between competing interests: the public interest and specific interests. By the same token, we must avoid undermining our key policy objectives, such as an increased diversity of late-night provision and a reduction of the disorder associated with artificially early fixed closing times, on which we have consulted and on which we have had a majority in favour of what is being proposed.

563
In short, we need to be sure that what we do will address whatever problem exists in a proportionate way. The number of licensed premises in inner London has fallen by as much as 10 per cent over the past three years, while, I am afraid to say, the perception of the cumulative effect of the problem has, from what I have heard today, increased. That is not to say that we do not recognise the special position of some parts of London where tourist centres and dense residential areas are sometimes closely intermingled.
However, from the debate today, there is a clear issue. We believe that it might be dealt with at two levels: first, by improving the integration of the planning and licensing regimes referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and identifying and strengthening areas where there may be shortcomings; and, secondly, by providing local authorities with the encouragement and tools to approach the problem of street disturbance in an imaginative and holistic way. Local authorities already have powers to address cumulative impact through existing planning law, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who has much experience in the matter, said. They are required to take into account the implications for crime and disorder and public amenity of any planning application and to impose conditions accordingly.
The Bill will improve the integration of the planning and licensing regime. Clause 7, which we shall discuss later, makes detailed provision for the exercise and delegation of functions by the licensing authority. That is the key point. Where a matter relates to a licensing function and to another function of the local authority such as a planning matter, the Bill makes arrangements for local authorities to consider them in a co-ordinated fashion. It may do that by referring the matter to another committee—in this case, the planning committee.
The Bill would also place a duty on the planning committee to consider the report of the licensing committee when making its recommendations. Similarly, the local authority in question would have the power under the Bill to ask the licensing committee to consider licensing and planning matters together, taking advice from the planning committee where appropriate. That mechanism will enable local authorities to take sensible and proportionate action where they believe that an area already has a density of licensed premises.
We must exercise caution, however, in how licensing authorities go about deciding how many licensed premises are too many. The hospitality and leisure industry is large and dynamic. It would be wrong to impose limits arbitrarily, because there is potential to affect the livelihoods not only of licensees but also of their employees. We intend to make clear in guidance some of the criteria to which a licensing committee might have regard in reporting to a planning committee on cumulative effects.
I shall now discuss the second approach. The Government believe that effective solutions to the problems of late-night anti-social behaviour go much
564
wider than just planning or just licensing. Nuisance and disorder can manifest themselves not only in licensed premises but in the street, too. Even where licensing authorities see a reduction in the number of licensed premises in an area, it is unlikely that that will significantly reduce the numbers of visitors attracted by a lively city centre or local community members continuing to enjoy their leisure time. Short of removing the entire stock of licensed premises—in which case, the problems would just move down the road—central and local government, the police and the wider public and private sectors will still need to think imaginatively.
There are examples of excellent practice around the country. I commend Manchester's City Centre Safe scheme, which has brought together the local police, the licensed trade and the local authority in a package of initiatives that have produced a significant year-on-year reduction in city centre assaults. Manchester's bus queues are managed by loaders provided by the local transport company, defusing them as a potential source of disorder. Some licensed premises have made voluntary payments for policing. The police themselves operate an innovative approach to enforcement, including the Top Ten Premises enforcement scheme, which allows better targeting of police resources at the worst performers. This is an excellent initiative, which I hold up as an example of what can be achieved by an imaginative local authority working with its partners.
The Government have announced that there will be a Bill on anti-social behaviour in this Session. We have provided the police with additional enforcement powers; for example, through fixed penalty notices. This Bill includes powers to close down licensed premises on the spot and extended powers to confiscate alcohol in sealed containers to prevent nuisance drinking. We are looking at town centre management issues, including transport provision and litter collection, through the national alcohol harm reduction strategy.
We should not forget the bread-and-butter provisions of the Bill. We want to improve the quality of life of people living in areas experiencing disorder and public nuisance related to artificially early fixed closing times, for example, which has been forgotten in this debate. The Bill will give a voice to local residents, who will be able to make representations on any licence application in their area and to call for a review of an existing licence on grounds of crime and disorder, public nuisance, public safety and the protection of children from harm. Those are the four objectives of the Bill.
In conclusion, the Government agree in principle that licensing authorities should not be powerless if faced with nuisance and disorder arising from an unusually high concentration of licensed premises. However, I hope that the Committee understands the need for balance. We need to protect pubs, restaurants and other businesses from arbitrary closure by the over-zealous licensing authorities I mentioned in the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. We also need to

565
ensure that the benefits for consumers—and I strongly believe this to be at the heart of the Bill—are not diluted without good cause.
We must try to avoid potentially perverse effects. People are attracted to an area by its reputation rather than by the number of licensed premises. Some parts of central London will always be centres of night-time leisure arising from the tourist industry, as are some parts of central Paris, New York, Tokyo and other cities, regardless of the number of pubs or clubs. Reducing numbers may serve only to cram existing customers into the resultant smaller provision. If fewer premises licences are available, or if a cap is placed on their number, they are likely to become tradable commodities, distorting the market. Then there is the possibility that, without reducing demand, the smaller number of remaining premises would simply expand to accommodate the existing market, achieving very little.
In response to my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead, who asked me to be sympathetic about the concern behind these amendments, I am. The case for existing licensing authorities to act in the genuine interest of local residents is clear. The Bill gives them that power, but, as I stated, we will look at the matter, and, if necessary, make it more explicit. If that is the case, I will return to do so at a later stage.
Some of the Bill's provisions already address the issue, but, given the strength of concerns expressed, we shall consider them further. We aim to return to the House with a framework that is fair, based on the evidence, not arbitrary, and has at its centre the important element of balance that I mentioned several times in responding to the debate. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Monson: Does the noble Baroness not agree that the problem has little to do with the number of licensed premises in an area? The problem is caused by the time of day or night at which the premises disgorge their customers into the neighbourhood. Will local authorities be allowed, with the backing of their residents, to stipulate that such premises, however many there may be, must close at midnight, or thereabouts, if they wish?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords. This is a deregulatory Bill. I set out clearly at Second Reading that there was a White Paper and extensive consultation, after which it became clear that there is a wish for wider opportunity for some licensed premises to open for longer hours than at present. There are good reasons for this, which relate to what we have just been debating. Binge drinking before an arbitrary closing time causes as many problems as it prevents.
5 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response, which, as she said, was intended to clear up a number of misunderstandings. Indeed, there is obviously a misunderstanding between all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister. We are not
566
debating the cumulative effect; that debate will come later in the proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is absolutely right to say that this has nothing to do with the argument about whether we are talking about one or a thousand premises in an area. We are talking about one of the four licensing objectives in the Bill—namely, the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. With these amendments we are seeking clarity as regards the meaning of,
"the prevention of public nuisance".
I was much disturbed by the Minister's response. She explained that the term of "public nuisance" as one of the licensing objectives extends only as far as the behaviour—the activities—within the premises, and said that what happens beyond the premises is a matter of personal responsibility. That simply is not true. A publican can become criminally responsible if he serves someone who has had too much to drink in the knowledge that he or she will subsequently get into a car and drive beyond the premises. Indeed, there are a number of ways in which a publican can be held criminally responsible for the behaviour of someone within his premises, and beyond.
The debate is about what we mean and understand by the phrase "public nuisance". In a sense, it is about premises being open for 24 hours. It is not necessarily about isolated events that take place at a certain time. I shall try to respond to the comments made by a number of noble Lords in an effort better to explain what the amendments seek to achieve. We are talking about the potential for 24 hours of opening time. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is absolutely right in what he says. Notwithstanding the fact that most publicans will not want their premises to remain open 24 hours a day, they will seek to obtain such a licence in the event that they should wish, on occasion, to remain open for as long as it is economically and socially viable for them to do so. We are talking about the impact, the effect, of the harm on the neighbourhood night after night; in other words, the disturbance of the peace.
I referred earlier to a meeting chaired by my noble friend Lady Hanham where a police officer said, "Alcohol equals crime and disorder". Many examples have been given in this afternoon's debate, especially by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, of the number of incidents, or activities, that can often lead, night after night, to both crime and disorder from one, or many, premises. It is most important to try to pin down as early as possible in our debate the intention in terms of the ability of local authorities to respond to, or impose, the licensing objectives when seeking to protect the interests of local communities.
As I said in my opening remarks, the reference in the Explanatory Notes to the meaning of the term "public nuisance" is too vague; it is too broad. I make no apology to my noble friend Lord Onslow for these amendments. We need such amendments, because they will enable us to understand the parameters involved. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, for his support of Amendment No. 68.

567
The noble Lord must forgive me for the legalese that I used when introducing the amendment. My purpose is principally, and quite rightly, to pin down the Government and ensure that they clarify the meaning of "public nuisance", as long as it remains in the Bill in its current form. Otherwise, once the Bill is enacted, local authorities and the police may find themselves faced with great difficulties when seeking to protect the quality of life of communities.
At the moment there is the possibility of seeing the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, dressed in his pyjamas—silk ones, it is to be hoped—at a certain hour of night seeking to stop this nuisance continuing night after night in the area where he lives. But at what time of night could the noble Lord sensibly go out in the future? We should remember that this Bill, which we support in principle, will allow licensed premises to remain open for 24 hours a day.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, asked whether the Bill contains powers to deal with the radical change in our culture to the 24-hour night-time economy. The Bill is unclear on the subject of such powers. Yes, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, local authorities can and do make sensible decisions; for example, when discussing planning matters. However, they can do so only if the mechanisms and powers are in place to enable them to respond to reasonable objections. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, put it very well when he said that what we are talking about is the power of "reasonable objection".
Some noble Lords seem to believe that the amendments now before the Committee are not quite right; some believe that they are too narrow, while others think that they are, perhaps, too broad. We are looking for the same outcome: we are all concerned about the real impact that this legislation will have on our local communities. We all need to be sure that local authorities, and the police, will have the proper powers to deal sensibly with these changes because they will make a difference. As I said on Second Reading, we have no idea what the effect of the Bill on our communities will be. This is a shot in the dark. It is one that we are all keen to take, but one about which we are deeply concerned. Although the industry will have the opportunity to develop premises to meet the needs, the wishes, and the desires of all of us to have liberalised licensing laws, at the same time we must ensure that it will not compromise too much. The balance must not be too unfair with regard to all of us when we are wearing our hats as local residents, whether it be in our towns, in our cities, or in our rural communities.
We are seeking to understand and to strike a balance with regard to this licensing objective. We should remember that it is one of the key aspects of the Bill. I am sorry, but I believe that the Minister has failed to respond to our concerns. However, I do see a glimmer of light in relation to her closing remarks on planning. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reference to,
"improving the integration of the planning and licensing regimes".
568
We welcome that move, but we need to be sure that that improvement will not mean that licensing authorities will be afraid to grant such licences to further premises because of the possible impact on the local community. It would be preferable if we had a clearer understanding of the phrase "public nuisance" and of the position of local communities under the Bill, rather than a clampdown within local authorities because they are afraid of the possible effect on their local residents if more premises licences were granted to the industry. There is a balance to be struck in that respect.
I note that paragraph 14 of the Framework for Guidance—which some of us have managed to find, and which contains so much of the meat of the Bill's implications—states that the guidance,
"would, for example, provide for a proper separation of the planning and licensing regimes to avoid duplication and inefficiency".
That seems to conflict entirely with what the Minister has just said about the need to improve integration of planning and licensing regimes.
Baroness Blackstone: I think that what "improvement" means here is avoiding duplication, where it currently unfortunately exists, but maintaining a sensible integration where, as I mentioned in replying to the debate, that is beneficial to the local community.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her clarity in responding to my comment. I hope that there will be some thought about how the arrangements are really going to work. I find her words about improving the integration of planning and licensing regimes encouraging, but I wonder whether the forthcoming planning Bill will reflect the need for some form of integration. As matters stand, and as so much of the framework for guidance stands, it is unclear how the arrangements are going to work. Nevertheless, I find definitely encouraging what I see as something of a concession. It is also a move for which local authorities, in particular, have been asking.
I have taken enough of the Committee's time. I am grateful to the many noble Lords who took part in this important debate on the licensing objectives. However, many questions have not been answered satisfactorily. Unless the Government table some welcome amendments before Report, we shall most certainly return to the issue at that stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Pensions
5.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, with the permission of the House. I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place on occupational and private pensions. The Statement is as follows:
"I wish to make a Statement on our Green Paper—Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement.
"Decisions on pensions are some of the most important of our lives. Since coming to office in 1997, this Government have faced three specific challenges on pensions: the challenge of affordability, of pensioner poverty, and of expectations. Rising longevity poses important challenges for the affordability of pensions systems right across the developed world. The old age dependency ratio is expected to more than double in the European Union, with even greater increases in other developed economies such as Japan. People living longer is good news. However, if people want to see continuing rising standards of living in retirement, they either have to save more, work longer, or a mixture of both.
"The United Kingdom is in a stronger position to meet this demographic challenge than most other developed countries, not only because our dependency ratio is expected to increase by half as much as the European average, but because of the choices we have made over the past five years to ensure that the UK pensions system remains affordable.
"We rejected the demands of those who said we should link the basic state pension to earnings because this short-term solution would not have been sustainable over the long term. Instead, because of our targeted approach, projections show that public spending on pensions in this country will remain stable over the next 50 years at around:5 per cent of GDP. In contrast, EU forecasts show that other European countries such as Germany and Spain will require increases of between 40 and 80 per cent in public spending on pensions over the next 50 years in order to meet their pension liabilities.
"It is this same targeted approach that has enabled us to meet the second challenge—that of pensioner poverty. Since 1997, we have strengthened the foundation of basic state support through the introduction of the minimum income guarantee and, from next October, the pension credit. As a result, next year, the poorest third of pensioners will be on average £1,500 a year better off.
"I can tell the House that we continue to reject calls from the pensions industry and others that all targeted support for pensioners should be scrapped and instead added to the basic state pension. Such a move would mean an increase in the maximum basic entitlement of £10 a week for some pensioners, but
570
at the expense of a £17 a week cut for the poorest pensioners—redistributing resources from the poorest to the richest pensioners.
"Over the past five years, as we have taken action to tackle pensioner poverty, the pension contributions of people on high incomes have risen by 40 per cent, increasing the incomes they can expect in retirement. The challenge facing society today is therefore one of the expectations of middle-income earners, people who expect to see continuing rising standards of living in retirement, but who in order to do so will either have to save more, work longer, or both.
"Evidence shows that perhaps 3 million such people are currently not saving enough for their retirement. And others may not be saving enough to provide the pensions they want. At the same time, occupational schemes have come under pressure from rising costs and increasing complexity. Some employers are closing schemes or cutting the level of contributions, and many people are leaving the workforce earlier.
"There is a choice to be made about how we meet these challenges. There are some who believe that a radical strengthening of the voluntarist approach to pension provision can never be made to work and that the UK should move beyond it, for example, adopting further compulsory pension contributions. We believe that the partnership between government, individuals, employers and the financial services industry has long been a strength of the pensions system in the UK and that the proposals we are setting out today will renew this partnership and reaffirm the responsibilities of each member.
"Our proposals show how, with all partners playing their part, the voluntarist approach can work to maximum effect. The test will be whether, with this radical strengthening of our approach, employers and employees can rise to the challenge voluntarily or whether we will need to introduce more compulsion.
"In a voluntarist system, over and above the level of support provided by the state, individuals are best placed to judge their own long-term savings needs and aspirations for retirement. However, the success of this approach rests on the information and understanding people have and the clarity of the options open to them. It will fail if the complexity of products and the cost of financial advice mean that people are deterred from saving.
"Since 1997 we have taken action to rebuild trust in the financial services industry, to clear up pensions mis-selling, and to introduce new savings products, like ISAs and stakeholder pensions, opening up opportunities for more people to save. However, for too many people, pension planning has remained an incomprehensible maze. As I said to the House in July,
'Pensions simplification has to be at the heart of any strategy to encourage greater pension provision'.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/02; col. 1053.]

571
"Nowhere is this truer than in taxation of pensions, which has grown so complex as to challenge even the experts. There are currently no fewer than eight different sets of tax rules in use for pensions, each with its own annual limits on contributions and benefits, imposing unnecessary inflexibility, driving up costs, and—worst of all—discouraging people from saving.
"So today I can announce a radical simplification of these rules. We propose to sweep away the eight existing pensions tax regimes, with their associated limits on annual contributions and benefits. In their place, we propose a single lifetime limit that is assessed once only, at the point of retirement, and we propose to set that limit at £1.4 million.
"The lifetime limit will be complemented by a light-touch compliance regime, based on an annual limit of £200,000. This limit will not affect the vast majority of people. Further details are set out in an Inland Revenue consultation document, published today by my right honourable friend the Chancellor. And, as my right honourable friend announced in the Pre-Budget Report, the tax free lump sum will remain. Existing tax reliefs for pension contributions for employees, the self-employed and employers will also remain.
"These proposals will help people to make clear and confident decisions, encouraging more saving and enabling more people to build up a bigger tax free lump sum. They mean far greater individual choice and flexibility about when and how much to save in a pension.
"Over 99 per cent of the population will be able to save more in a pension—with tax incentives—than under current rules. The proposals will reduce administrative burdens on employers and pension providers alike. Taken with other measures I am announcing today, they could save employers between £150 million to £200 million a year in pensions administration.
"We shall match this radical simplification of pensions taxation by breaking down other barriers to pension saving. We shall provide individuals with more information about their own circumstances. Our proposals would increase the availability of state pension forecasts and extend the coverage of combined state and occupational pension forecasts.
"We shall promote total benefit statements in the workplace, and highlight the additional value tax relief makes to saving in a pension. To broaden access to advice, we shall work with the financial services industry to develop mass-market financial advice in high street banks, and shall consult on options for a possible requirement on employers who do not provide pensions to provide financial advice free of charge through the workplace.
"I can confirm to the House that we shall implement the recommendations of the Sandler report to make it easier to save through simpler products, dramatically stripping out regulation and sales costs. We propose to offer the self-employed
572
the right to opt in to the state second pension. And I can also announce that we shall increase product choice and flexibility in the annuities market by consulting on proposals to allow limited period and value protected annuities.
"The proposals we are setting out today will also reaffirm the role and responsibilities of employers in the pension partnership. Many employers recognise the important benefits to recruitment, retention and staff motivation that good pension provision brings. But, elsewhere, some employers have been reducing their financial commitment and contribution to workplace pensions, causing anxiety and damaging confidence in pension saving. There is a difficult balance to strike here. We want to increase member protection without imposing burdens on employers.
"I can announce today that we propose to create a new proactive pensions regulator to focus on schemes where there is a high risk of fraud, bad governance or maladministration. We are also setting out proposals for a fairer sharing of assets when schemes close, with more priority for workers closer to retirement or those with more years of contributions. We propose stronger protection for members where employers wind up schemes, and the capping of provisions to prevent executives abandoning ship and taking the lifeboat with them. We recognise, as good employers already do, the vital interest employees have in their pension arrangements, so we propose requiring employee consultation before schemes are changed. We can expect to enhance protection for employees only if we make it simpler and easier for employers to run schemes.
"Following Alan Pickering's report we propose radically to reduce the regulatory burden on occupational schemes by simplifying the contracting out rules, including reforming the reference scheme test and ending restrictions on how and at what age contracted out rights can be drawn. We shall also replace the minimum funding requirement with scheme specific funding requirements, saving companies £80 million a year and consider allowing employers to make membership a condition of employment. I can also announce our aim to consolidate all pensions legislation into a single pensions Act.
"These radical reforms mean big cuts in the administrative burdens on employers and schemes. We shall also work with a new employer-led task force, including trade union membership, to identify and promote good practice.
"Enabling people to work a few years longer can make a huge difference to retirement income. The 1980s and early 1990s saw the employment rate for older male workers decline. That trend has been reversed, with 900,000 more people over 50 now in jobs than in 1997. But we must go further, doing away with inflexible and outdated approaches to retirement. Our proposals will allow people to choose to work for longer if they want to.

573
"We propose to promote flexibility in retirement by building on the success of the New Deal 50 +; legislating against age discrimination; ending compulsory retirement ages; and raising the normal pension age for most groups in the public services to 65 for all new entrants.
"To smooth the cliff edge between work and retirement we propose to allow people to carry on working while drawing an occupational pension. And to improve the incentives for those who want to work past state pension age, we shall bring forward increases to the extra state pension people get by deferring. This means that a single pensioner who has accumulated £100 a week state pension and second pension entitlement could choose to take their pension at 70 and get £150 a week instead.
"We are also consulting on the chance for those who defer to take a lump sum instead of the enhanced pension. For a single pensioner, this would be a one off payment of £20,000 on top of their normal pension, or £30,000 for a couple.
"I have one further announcement to make on the state pension age. We have received representations for a significant change, with persuasive arguments to move to a higher state pension age, releasing resources for use elsewhere in the pension system. I have carefully considered this option and have concluded that it would impact disproportionately on the poorest workers most dependent on the state pension, many of whom have had hard working lives. As well as being forced to work for longer they would, because of lower life expectancy, see a bigger than average slice of their retirement taken away. I have therefore decided that we should not raise the state pension age. Our measures to give people far greater choice about flexible retirement are the right way to address this issue.
"The proposals we are setting out today seek to renew the pensions partnership in the UK. They show how, with all partners playing their part, the voluntarist approach can be made to work to maximum effect. As I have said, there are some who believe that the voluntarist approach to pension provision can never be made to work and that the UK should adopt a system of compulsory pension contributions. There is a choice. The case for compulsion has not yet been made. But because of the magnitude of such a decision and the need to help build a wider consensus on the way forward I am today establishing an independent pensions commission reporting to me as Secretary of State on whether the current voluntary system is sufficient to ensure that employers and employees rise to the challenge.
"I can tell the House that Adair Turner, former director general of the CBI, has accepted my invitation to chair this pensions commission. It will report to me regularly on whether there is a case for moving beyond voluntarism. The time has come for all the partners in the pensions system—government, employers, employees and financial services—to rise to the pensions challenge. I commend the Statement to the House".
574
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place in a way that suggested not only that she believed it but also that she understood it. I declare an interest as chairman of a company pension scheme.
This is the second Green Paper produced by this Government. The previous one, Partnership in Pensions, was not as large as the current one and had a foreword by the Prime Minister. The current one merely has a foreword by the Secretary of State. I am not entirely clear as to the significance of that. Since that time we have had about 38 consultative documents. A whole mass of new material arrived today which we shall wish to study carefully.
We welcome the proposed simplification of regulations and pensions taxation, always provided, of course, that that does not conceal some stealth tax. We shall consider that matter very carefully indeed. A key feature of the previous Green Paper was that the Government wished to move from a situation where 60 per cent of pension provision came from government and 40 per cent from private sources to a situation where 60 per cent came from private sources and only 40 per cent from government. I ask the Minister: is that still the Government's objective? Time and time again government action has applied pressure in the opposite direction. Either it has an adverse effect on private provision or such measures as have been introduced to increase private provision have produced poor results. The result is that the industry and pensions provision generally are in a state of crisis. I am glad to see that I have support i n the form of nods from the Benches opposite.
The Green Paper published today shows remarkable complacency. The main attack on private provision was, of course, the notorious action with regard to ACT of the Chancellor when he entered office. As a result pensions have been deprived of some £5 billion a year—now £25 billion in total and rising—which has seriously affected their available resources and is a major contributory factor in the closure of many final salary schemes to new members. The rate of closure has doubled in the past year. However, one does not get that impression from the Statement. Some 55 per cent of leading companies have now closed final salary schemes to new members. Indeed, a number of companies have closed schemes completely, even to existing members. Against that background, it is also the case that some schemes have been wound up or closed. I am glad to welcome the proposals in the Statement that suggest that action will be taken to prevent members of schemes, who had expectations with regard to their pensions, being adversely affected, as some have been.
I also welcome the change being made, at long last, with regard to the minimum funding requirement. However, I am not at all clear how changing to a scheme-specific proposal, as mentioned in the Statement, will save companies £80 million a year. Perhaps the Minister will explain.

575
In addition to the adverse effect that the Government's policy has had on company schemes and private provision, their attempt to increase that provision has not been successful. It was expected that some 5 million people would take out stakeholder pensions, but I believe that the figure is less than 1 million. Will the Minister tell us what the actual figure is? I believe, too, that 46 per cent of the schemes imposed on companies by the Government have no members at all. Furthermore, I fear that even those in tracker funds, for example, will not produce a satisfactory return for those investing in them. That is a considerable deterrent to people engaging in schemes as the Government wish them to do.
As for the state second pension, a whole range of bodies including the NAPF, the Pensions Policy Institute and the IPPR have suggested that it is not ideal. As the Minister implied, they would prefer to have an improvement on the basic state pension. With regard to the state second pension, the Statement did not mention when the change would come from graded to flat-rate places.
The Government have included proposals allowing people to work longer if they want to, and the idea that people can draw their pensions while still in employment. That is scarcely a new idea; indeed, I believe that it has been proposed at least five times. It is a question not of "Have I Got News For You", but of "I Have Not Got News For You". We have found considerable doubts about the proposal, but we shall consider it with interest.
The Government have made the interesting suggestion of changing to a lump sum proposal if people defer the drawing of their state pension. The figure of £20,000 was suggested. Will the Minister explain where that figure comes from and whether it will be a tax free lump sum? I give an example from the experience of my family. My sister deferred her pension for a year in the hope of getting an increased return, but found that it took more than 18 months to get paid the increase that had been deferred for a year. Administration of the pension system is lamentably bad; it has not significantly improved over the lifetime of the Government.
No mention was made of the requirement for people to draw annuities at the age of 75. It will be a disappointment that no such provision is included in the Statement, given the fact that an amendment has been carried twice in your Lordships' House. It is all the more important because pressure on annuity rates will be upwards due to the Government's proposal to increase borrowing. Therefore, people who are unable to defer the drawing of their annuity will have to draw it in January, if they reach the age of 75 at that time, although annuity rates are likely to rise thereafter.
The complexity of the Government's proposals with regard to tax credits has resulted in an appallingly low level of take-up. The NAO report, recently issued, suggests that no less than 20 per cent of pensioners fail to take up their entitlements. Since 1997, the crucial
576
aspect of the Government's policy has been to move towards increased means testing and a system with the minimum income guarantee. That has been a considerable deterrent to saving, as people have to save a considerable amount before they draw anything over and above the minimum income guarantee. Will the Minister tell us what size fund one would need to get any advantage from saving, over and above what one is likely to get under the terms of the minimum income guarantee?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not understand that question.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am asking how much one would need to save in order to get a return that is greater than the amount likely to be provided by the minimum income guarantee. We shall return to that point later, if need be.
At all events, Mr Pickering, who advises the Government on pensions, says that he does not believe that one can have a pensions credit and minimum income guarantee as a basis on which to build a pensions system for future decades. The combination of means-tested benefits in relation to the overall situation is a source of considerable concern.
I refer to the Government's proposals for the publication of forecasts of what people are likely to receive on retirement. That forecast will be based on many assumptions, but to judge the accuracy of such a forecast one has only to compare what people expected to receive a year ago to what they are likely to receive now, given the changes that have taken place in the stock market, the annuity rate and so on. The Government are apparently proposing to have a combined pensions forecast for individuals, for both state and private provision. That forecast is likely to be highly inaccurate. Indeed, it would have been very inaccurate, even in the case of people with an Equitable Life pension, who were already drawing it and had been drawing it for 20 years. They have recently discovered that their expectations have been greatly disappointed and that their pensions have been cut by perhaps 20 per cent. To start forecasting people's pensions on various assumptions seems more likely to mislead than to help them, despite the fact that people engaged in pilot schemes suggested that it had been helpful.
The document is complex and reflects a great deal of thought by the Government, but it does not represent the kind of analysis and proposals that are necessary if one is to reassure people that in 10, 15, 20 or 30 years' time they will have an adequate income on which to live. The pressure will be to put more and more people on to the means-tested benefit level. We see clearly from the latest figures the extent to which the number on means-tested benefit is increasing. The proportion

577
of people who are at that level, rather than at the level that might reasonably be expected given their previous incomes, is worrying.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords—
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have almost finished. The Statement is complacent, but we shall need to debate the situation in government time in the near future, when we can express our concerns in more detail.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, speaks, I point out that we are allowed 20 minutes for both Front Bench speeches and my reply. That means that if the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, takes only eight minutes, I cannot offer a word to the House on the two speeches.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, this is a very important Statement and I had understood from the Clerks that it has been the custom for rather more discretion in these matters to be shown.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I am of course conscious of the time. Although I sympathise with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, the House is put in a difficult position if one of the two main Opposition speakers takes 13 minutes out of a potential 20 minutes. Clearly, I shall do my best to be brief. Equally, this is an important and long-awaited Green Paper and I hope that the Minister will give substantive replies.
We have had over the past two weeks the most sustained government media operation since they came to power to spin down expectations for the Green Paper. Now we know why. I declare an interest as a cynical old pension fund manager who has seen far too many company chief executives massaging down market expectations before a disappointing announcement. The first thing that one learns in the City is that bad figures take longer to add up. Now we know that in politics bad Green Papers take longer to cobble together.
I start with a serious complaint about a great discourtesy, to put it politely, in the noble Baroness's ministry. I received just before 3 o'clock a copy of the Statement and of the Green Paper. The Statement had large chunks blacked out, as did the Green Paper. I really do not see the point of normal courtesies if that sort of thing happens. Vital sections were blacked out. Does the Minister condone that shabby behaviour? If not, will she please find out who was responsible and give a proper assurance to the House that such behaviour will not happen in future?
The collapse in confidence in pension funds and long-term insurance has seriously undermined savings in the economy as a whole. We used to have a culture of "save for a rainy day" but now it is increasingly "borrow and spend today and let tomorrow take care of itself'. As the NAPF put it,
"today's pressures tend to trump tomorrow's aspirations".
578
That is why we on these Benches—unlike the other two main parties but like an increasing number of people and organisations throughout the country—believe that there is no alternative to ensuring that everyone on moderate and higher incomes is building up either a company or a stakeholder pension.
The Green Paper still bangs the drum for stakeholder pensions. We know that the take-up in the market so far has been very poor. The reason is simple: insurance companies are not charities and it is simply not economic for them to sell stakeholders at I per cent unless volumes are much higher. We on these Benches support the 1 per cent cap. However, can the Minister see that that will work only when we get the economies of scale that come with compulsory pension provision?
In pensions today, we are seeing a new version of Gresham's law: not bad money driving out the good but bad pension providers driving out the good, as John Lewis said only the other day, as all its competitors were closing down their schemes.
I turn to the announcement. What exactly will be the powers and functions of the new "proactive pensions regulator"? Will he be able to show the yellow card to rogue employers rushing to close down pension schemes without proper consultation? That is a bitter blow and usually means a sharp pay cut in practice. Does the Minister agree that that breaks a moral contract with employees? How will the Government deal with companies such as the Big Food Group, which has a current stock market value of £200 million and a corporate jet costing £400,000 a year to swan around in, but which has just closed its pension fund to existing members? Does that involve fraud, had governance or maladministration, or simply downright meanness and management with the wrong principles?
The Statement also projects public spending on pensions to remain stable over the next 50 years as a proportion of GDP. The reason for that is simple: we pay such rotten state pensions. NAPF shows us at the bottom of the European league. I have not time to go into figures, but they are publicly available. No wonder we are spending only 5.5 per cent of our national income, compared with much higher figures for other countries, which also have much higher pensions.
How will the new £1.4 million single lifetime limit work? We are told that it will be assessed at the point of retirement. But will that involve what one puts in or what one takes out? How will one know, when one is investing, how much it will roll up to? The basic problem is not that of people saving too much, which the scheme appears to address, but that of people on moderate incomes saving too little.
Finally, we are to have an independent pensions commission under Adair Turner to report on whether the voluntary system can save our pensions. Who will be the members, how will they be chosen and will they really be independent? What will be the balance

579
between the supporters of the Brown and the Blair view of pensions? In particular, when will it report?
Last year at conference, the Prime Minister said:
In New Labour, we are at our best when at our boldest".
In this regard, we have a mishmash of half measures on top of a morass of old Labour means testing. That is Labour not at its boldest and best but at its weakest and worst.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall be as telegraphic as I can, given the decision of the House to confine the two Front Bench speeches and the Minister's reply to 20 minutes where possible. Rather than going into any of the more descriptive stuff, I shall try to answer questions as briefly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether it was still the Government's intention to move from 60:40 to 40:60. We are travelling in that direction and we seek to continue to do that. The noble Lord also asked about figures for stakeholders. Nearly 1.2 million have been sold, 40 per cent of them to people with incomes of between £10,000 and £20,000; 97 per cent of those people are of working age. We are indeed meeting some of the target audience whom we were seeking to help to build up a second funded pension.
The noble Lord also asked about S2P and why we were not following the advice given to us to build it into the basic state pension. Behind that is a question about what one's national insurance entitlement brings. Putting additional money on to the basic state pension is opposed to our targeted approach, including access to a state second pension. One does not have to be in the national insurance system to earn that—one can get it as a carer or disabled person. Targets help with those who most need it.
Noble Lords may well be aware that 90 per cent of men have full basic pension by virtue of a complete national insurance record. The figure for women having a basic state pension on their own NI record is 15 per cent. Any increases in the basic state pension would not be enjoyed by those women except through the sadness of bereavement. In other words, unless one targets, one does not help those who do not have a complete NI record. That may change over time but the gender discrepancy is huge. That is why it would be regressive, not progressive, to amalgamate S2P with the basic state pension.
The noble Lord asked when we might expect that to go to a flat rate. That will depend on our assessment of when we believe the time is appropriate. We have not yet made a decision. He also said that we were having a crisis in DB schemes. It is certainly true that last year about 1 per cent of DB schemes closed. However, the latest figures that I have seen show that of those in occupational pensions, 4.6 million are in DB schemes and less that 1 million are in DC schemes. They still remain the major pension form of occupational pensions. I suggest that what matters is not so much whether someone is in a DB or a DC scheme; DB schemes reward late career salary progression—that
580
involves men, mostly—and the employer obviously carries the risk. However, DC schemes may be more attractive to those who change jobs regularly or have more modest earnings, particularly women. The key issue is that of employers' contributions. The problem is not that of going from DB to DC schemes but that companies have taken the opportunity on average to more than halve their contributions: the average figure has dropped from 9.9 to 4.1. That is why DC schemes appear to be such a poor buy; the reduction in contributions by employers is involved. If that changes, DC schemes could be an equally attractive option for those with a rapid career movement.
The noble Lord asked whether the lump sum on deferring the state pension would be tax free. No, my Lords. We are saying that if at the moment, as a single person at the age of 65, one has a state pension of£100, by deferring for five years one will be able to draw a state pension with S2P of £150 but that one might prefer to take that increment as a lump sum instead. Those are the proposals.
The noble Lord raised the issue of annuity rates. He knows the Government's arguments. We believe that an annuity is pooled risk and ensures a reliable flow of income. It is worth emphasising that the average annuity pot in this country is £25,000. Two-thirds of people have pots of under £25,000. That is skewed by a figure at the top. Half of all annuity pots are under £10,000. So the rules at 75 years simply do not come into play. They are small sums and we need to make sure that people invest them wisely for their old age.
The noble Lord asked at what point people would be better off on pension credit. The bigger argument at the moment is that someone who has, for example, a small pension of £100 per month is no better off with that pension than they would be on MIG. Under pension credit, they will keep £60 of that £100. Therefore, every additional £1 over the basic retirement figure—£75 per week at the moment—is available to come into pension credit. So one will keep 60 pence of every additional new pound one earns up until the taper ends. So at £1 it is worth saving. It is a very directly targeted reward for small savers. I hope that, as a result, it will be welcomed, and particularly so by the noble Lord opposite.
The noble Lord queried pension forecasting. From the pilots that were quoted, we find it valuable. It led to 30 per cent of those who took part in the pilots seeking additional information and 8 per cent taking up further provision. While I accept some of the provisos that the noble Lord attaches, none the less the pilots show that pension forecasting can give people an early warning that if they wish to have a more comfortable old age, they need to make further provision.
Finally, the noble Lord gave us a critique of means testing. If one does not means test and one gives the flat rate to everyone, about one-third of the population cannot need it and one-third of the population will be

581
worse off. The point is that by targeting, we have helped those without complete NI records—mainly older women. If the noble Lord thinks that we should take away from elderly widows to give to Members of your Lordships' House, so be it. But that is not my position.
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, referred to the blacked-out line. I queried it myself. I was assured that this was conventional where one is dealing with financially sensitive information coming from the Exchequer. It is common practice when dealing with Budget information. That is confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Therefore, no disrespect is suggested to the House; it is common procedure to protect information until it has been reported to MPs. I am grateful to see that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who has been a Treasury Minister confirms that.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, if I may say so, that is absolute nonsense. If one looks in detail at what has been blacked out, one can see that there is no way in which that is the case. I operate in financial markets. I know what is market sensitive and what is not. I must ask the Minister to look in detail at what has been blacked out and to reply to me on those lines.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have looked at it in detail. I have been assured that it is Treasury policy not to release information of that kind before the Secretary of State has stood up to present it in the House. That is the assurance that I have been given. If the noble Lord wishes to write to me, I shall he happy to follow this up further. I can see how irritating it may be for him, but I am assured that that is the convention and practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, raised the issue of compulsion. He is absolutely right that unless employers contribute, neither do employees. With regard to stakeholders—all the information from Legal & General shows this also—where employers contribute, so do 70 per cent of employees. Where employers do not contribute, only 15 per cent of employees do so. That is a key point.
The noble Lord asked about setting up the commission. Its point is precisely to see—and to hope—that we can make the voluntary provision, which has been so successful in this country, continue to work. But if it does not, we shall have to review it because we are determined that people will have the pension coverage they need.
As to the noble Lord's point about people saving too little, that is true. But that is a judgment about what people think they should have in their retirement. They can make that judgment by deciding to save more or by working longer or possibly even by reducing their aspiration of what income they should enjoy in their retirement. At the moment, unless they have such
582
information and know what the options are, they will not be able to make informed choices. That is the push of this Green Paper.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I do not know whether or not this was blacked out in the copy, but I certainly do not accept paragraph 7 of the Minister's Statement. That states:
"The United Kingdom is in a stronger position to meet this demographic challenge because of the choices we [the Government] have made over the past five years".
To ascribe our position exclusively to what the Government have done over the past five years is utterly absurd, and it is entirely typical of the kind of ridiculous claims the Government make.
On a more fundamental point, is not the real danger that we are heading for two nations in retirement? We have the public sector, with guaranteed final salary schemes and assured retirement ages, watching, at times with some complacence, the private sector which, as my noble friend has said, is in undoubted crisis. Surely the reason for that crisis is not uncaring employers, but the fact that over the past five years—and this is the significance of "the past five years"—the Government have struck against personal provision, including by the notorious £5 billion per year pensions tax.
Is the Minister aware that although some of these proposals are undoubtedly useful, they also undoubtedly fall short of the radical action needed to encourage wider personal provision, including scrapping the rule that requires in all circumstances annuities at the age of 75?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, leaving aside the purple prose, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has made two points: on ACT and annuities. On ACT, he knows perfectly well where the Government come from. We believe that the old ACT system was a tax deformation. Money was sent out in dividends which would have been better invested in companies. I think as a result we have seen the British Economy in a better state—weathering the global recession—than almost any other economy.
Secondly, the Myners report also made clear that what mattered was not so much tax dividends—ACT—but the investment decisions and investment strategies made by managers. That was tenfold more important. I think that was the major push of the noble Lord's question.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for this very comprehensive Statement. We need a great deal more time to consider it, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said. Clearly, we have to make time for a debate on the subject. It is far too complex to be dealt with simply in questions on the Statement.
As to the Minister's Statement today, the issue of people not saving has again been raised. People generally, particularly poorer people, do not save because they cannot afford to. In those circumstances,

583
it is absolutely essential that the state basic pension is sufficient to enable people to live some kind of life. Indeed, I note that the NAPF has made this suggestion among its recommendations.
I still adhere to my view that the basic state pension should be linked to the earnings index. But the reason why a number of us feel that the pensions industry and pensions provision faces a crisis is what has happened recently in connection with final salary schemes. I declare my interest. I am a member of Amicus, the union that has been much involved in negotiating pensions for its members over the years. We were very proud that we had negotiated some very good schemes for our members, mainly final salary. We now know what is happening in a number of firms where these schemes are being wound up. New employees are being offered a deal that is fundamentally inferior to what was on offer in the final salary scheme. In some instances people who were members of final salary schemes are finding they will not get what they thought they would get under those schemes.
Clearly, there are major problems. It seems to me that something must be done to protect employees' rights in these schemes. I note that there will be a new pensions regulator. I do not know yet what role the pensions regulator will have. But clearly something must be done to protect employees' rights.
I notice that major unions have made statements this morning—the GMB, my own union and so on. The unions regard pension provision as deferred pay. They are concerned that if deferred pay is damaged, it is the same as wage cuts, and they are threatening dispute action in a number of cases. I have no doubt that if those developments proceed we shall see industrial disputes in some major companies. In that sense I believe that there is a crisis in the pensions industry.
However, there is no time this afternoon to conduct a full discussion of all the issues that arise in this important Green Paper. I hope that the opportunity will be afforded to this House to debate those issues in the near future.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on my noble friend's last point regarding the shortness of time for debate, I do not believe I am breaching any great secret when I say that we are expecting, subject to the usual channels, one of our Back-Bench debates in late January to be made available for a debate on pensions as my noble friend suggests. As I say, that is subject to the usual channels and the arrangement of ordinary business. But I agree that we cannot deal with these complex issues in a quick Statement. We need time to reflect on the report, take advice and see how the debate develops.
My noble friend's second point related to the attachment to the basic state pension. I have already made the point that it does nothing to help those with incomplete NI records, of whom a large number are women. It is also the case that it preserves existing inequalities among pensioners. My noble friend may have been right in 1979 but she is wrong now.
584
Since 1979 the bottom one-fifth of pensioners have seen their income grow by around 30 per cent; the top one-fifth by 80 per cent. The average is around 64 per cent. In other words, inequalities have widened and to throw the same money at everybody preserves those inequalities and does very little to reduce poverty. As a result of the actions of my right honourable friends in another place, both the current and former Secretaries of State, the poorest one-third of pensioners have seen an improvement in their income in real terms by £1,500 a year since we came into office. I am sure that my noble friend will want to congratulate us on that.
Again, I have already answered my noble friend's points about DB schemes. At the core is the level of contribution. Provided the level of contribution is as high over time, DC schemes should produce the same sort of result as DB schemes. But not, as my noble friend said, if employers use the opportunity to cut their contributions.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, following on from that, can the Minister say why the greatest inequality in pensions is not mentioned at all in the Statement? I refer to the inequality between men and women. It is simply not mentioned in the Statement. Are any measures to be introduced to tackle that issue?
Secondly, the Statement says that the Government will consider allowing employers to make membership of a pension scheme a condition of employment. What is that if it not compulsion? Why is the only issue on which there is compulsion one that is directed towards employees and not employers when, as the noble Baroness in her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, spelt out, numerous employers have welched on their deals on pensions in the past five years?
Finally, can the Minister explain how the incentives for deferment of the uptake of the basic state pension can possibly be in harmony with the pension credit? What measures will there be to ensure that people who defer their state pensions do not subsequently lose out on pension credits because of their greater income?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, to look at Chapter 7 in relation to women. I admit that there is nothing on this in the Statement as such. But in Chapter 7, for the first time, we have a section on women's situations. For example, if I can draw her attention to section 7.1, paragraph 6, it says that most women work fewer hours for lower pay and for fewer years than most men. So they acquire less national insurance rights and have less occupational pension coverage. But that reduced pension income, given women's earlier retirement age and greater longevity, has to last them for longer. Therefore at each step of the way we have to intervene to ensure women's greater financial prosperity in old age.
My point is that women's financial penury in old age is a consequence of their situation in the labour market through their working lives. To put it another way, a man may start single, marry, have children, divorce, become single again, re-partner, but throughout that

585
time he almost certainly works full time and contributes to his pension. Almost every one of those steps will affect a woman's contributions to her earnings and therefore to her pension. She is therefore locked in that situation.
I hope that when the noble Baroness has the time she will read this report—it is very long. It will be seen that at each step we are trying to take measures to improve the situation of part-time workers; to improve childcare access for women; to improve their situation vis-a-vis national insurance schemes; to try to bring them into occupational pensions and to try to improve their situation through targeted support like S2P in retirement. But it must be analysed step by step, which is all I can suggest to the noble Baroness. It is locked into the inter-linking between their earnings and caring capacity in their working lives which generates such poor state and occupational coverage as reflected in their national insurance rates.
The noble Baroness asked about employers. The point on compulsion is that up until 1988 employers could make membership of a scheme compulsory as a condition of employment. That was then scrapped. We are putting forward for consultation—this is a Green Paper— whether or not we should go back to that situation and allow employers to make it a compulsory condition of employment. That is not the same as saying that employers themselves will necessarily contribute. But our experience is that where they have such a scheme, they tend to. The second issue of compulsion is one that we shall keep under review. At the end of the day, if employers do not contribute then, as we know from experience, many employees fail to contribute also and as a result they fall back.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, the Minister spoke eloquently this afternoon about how people will need to contribute more to their pension schemes, save more, retire at a later date or enjoy lower living standards when they do retire. Will she be honest with the House and acknowledge that millions of people in Britain will be in exactly that position of having to retire later or save more as a direct consequence of her Government's decision to take £5 billion every year from their pension schemes?
In response to the question asked by my noble friend in relation to the need to encourage companies to invest more in their businesses, was the Minister saying that the Government felt that that was more important than the long-term prospects of pensioners in this country? Can we have a straight answer? If the noble Baroness wishes to persuade people—a proper goal—to contribute more to pensions, is it not high time that the Government reversed the damaging decision they took to take away £5 billion from people's pension funds when they had every expectation that that money would be there to look after them in their old age?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have given my answer on ACT and I shall not expand further on it at this stage. However, I am happy to come back to the new point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about people seriously under-saving.
586
The best evidence we have is that if we assume that people wish to enjoy, for example, 50 per cent gross income in retirement—it is worth emphasising that that means 62 per cent net income because they are not paying national insurance contributions and the like—then around 12 per cent of people are seriously under-saving. If however we are talking of having a gross income in retirement of 40 per cent or a net income of around 50 per cent, we are coming down to a ballpark figure of around 1 million.
So a serious problem arises for people with modest earnings. It does not arise for those 'with the poorest earnings. It will be seen on Table 2.7 in the Statement that up to £300 a week the state pension will give replacement values of 50 or 60 per cent or more; indeed, for the poorest it will actually give replacement values of nearly 140 per cent. But for those earning between £15,000 and £25,000 a year—the group seeing their pension promise reducing given longevity and the stock market turmoil—if they wish to enjoy higher pensions than they are currently in line to receive, they indeed have to save more, work longer or alternatively reduce their expectations. There is no way out of that, given increasing longevity.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when I was a rather feckless young man of 23, newly arrived in London and able to think of a thousand things on which to spend my money, I was furious to discover that I had to make a compulsory contribution to a pension scheme. Now, having retired six weeks ago, I am extremely grateful that I did. Does the Minister think that that helps to make out the case that my noble friend Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay made in favour of compulsion, although not necessarily to contribute to one's employer's scheme?
Does the Minister remember—she probably does not—an occasion in the debate on the Address two years ago when I advised her not to claim for the Government all the credit for the success of the global economy and to remember that before she had to start saying that the Government were not to take the blame for all the failures of the global economy? Does she have the tiniest bit of regret that she did not take that advice?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, all that one need do is consider the state of the British economy, compared to other economies, to see how robust it is. We have higher employment than we have ever had and less long-term adult and youth unemployment than we have had since the late 1960s. Noble Lords should also consider the low level of inflation that we enjoy.
It is worth emphasising to the noble Earl that low inflation is of particular value to women. In the kind of high-inflation economy that we inherited, a rate of 10 per cent would mean that the value of a pension would halve in eight years; at 5 per cent, it would halve in 14 years. With the current level of inflation, it would halve only after about 29 years. That is a real return for the Government's investment in our economy.

587
The second point that the noble Earl made was about compulsory contributions. It is worth reminding the noble Earl that annex 4 to the Statement gives the composition of the group without pensions. We know that half are low-earners—with less than £10,000 a year—who have a real problem with debt. It might be better for them to rely on state provision. Two thirds are women, for the reasons that I suggested. A third work part-time. A third are young—under 30—and may be in the situation that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was in. Half of those with slightly higher earnings had broken work records, but nearly all of them had partners who saved more than they did. We take isolated figures and do not consider household savings.
Given all that, the noble Earl can see why significant tranches of the population do not feel that a funded pension is for them. That is not to say that we should not try to persuade them to save for it, but, for many people, it is not sensible to go into a funded scheme. They would do better staying with S2P.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I recognise several useful measures in the Statement. However, the debate we should have is about whether those measures are adequate for the scale of the problem we face. As I have not seen the Green Paper, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether, to inform that debate, the Government have set out their view of a reasonable objective for future levels of pension income relative to wages. If not, can it be set out before we debate the matter?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we say that it is a matter of choice. We give figures to show people what they would have to save, given certain assumptions, for a number of years, if they wanted a gross income of 66 per cent—80 per cent net—or a gross income of 50 per cent—62 per cent net. We set it out in that form, but, ultimately, it is someone's choice what level of income they wish to experience and what arrangements they will make to arrive at that level. It may be determined by their mortgage situation, whether they are putting children through university and other commitments.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister said to my noble friend Lord Higgins, I think, that shifting to 60 per cent private provision was no longer a target, just a direction of travel. What is the current proportion of private provision to public? What does the Minister expect those ratios to be in 10 years' time as a result of the Green Paper?
Can the Minister also give the Government's position on defined benefit and defined contribution schemes? Are the Government now indifferent as between those schemes? I took from what she said that they were complacent about the continuance of defined benefit schemes, although my reading of the statistics is that the rate of closure is worrying, if one believes that such schemes should be maintained.
588
How transparent will the work of the new insurance commissioner be? How independent will the commissioner be—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The pensions commissioner.
Baroness Noakes: I beg your pardon. I meant the new pensions commissioner—the position being taken up by Mr Adair Turner. How transparent will the advice given to Ministers be? How is that position independent, given that Mr Adair Turner appears to be well entrenched, at least in Number 10?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness the statistics that she wants about the 60:40 per cent or 40:60 per cent point. I cannot say what the situation will be in 10 years' time. That will depend on what happens with the take-up of stakeholders, with the pension credit and the like. I emphasise that that is the direction in which we wish and seek to move.
I resent being told that I am complacent about DB schemes. I said—I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not hear me—that if DC schemes attracted as much investment as DB schemes, the return over time for the person in the funded scheme should be broadly the same. I complained that employers too often took the opportunity to move from DB to DC schemes, not just to reduce risk but to cut contributions by more than half. If that is being complacent, the noble Baroness and I attach rather different meanings to the word.
The noble Baroness talked about the insurance commissioner. I am not sure whether she was talking about the new pensions regulator or the new commission that will be headed, possibly, by Mr Adair Turner, the name that the noble Baroness mentioned. It will be independent, in the sense that it will seek to embrace sections of the industry, including—I hope—the trade union movement. It will make recommendations to the Secretary of State about the adequacy, reach and coverage of voluntary provision. In the light of that information, it is open to the Secretary of State, if he is not satisfied—and to Parliament—to return to the issue of compulsion, raised from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Transport Investment Plan
6.17 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on transport investment.
"Today, I am publishing a report on progress since April 2001 on the delivery of the 10-year investment plan for transport. This investment plan commits the Government to spending over £180 billion—both

589
public and private investment—over a 10-year period. It is an unprecedented commitment, providing stability and increasing spending over the long term. And maintaining that investment year on year is essential to make up for decades of under-investment and neglect.
"Over the 10-year period, this means public expenditure of over £22 billion on strategic roads; £33 billion on the railways and £51 billion on local transport. The plan is the first time ever that a Government have been willing to commit themselves to such a level of funding over a long period. And that funding is making and will continue to make a difference.
"If you look at other countries successes in transport the common factor is sustained investment, year on year and decade after decade. That is why we remain committed to updating and rolling forward the plan in 2004 to coincide with the next public expenditure review. And that review will take account of progress so far and challenges that will have to be met in the years to 2015 and beyond. Such long-term commitment and planning is essential if we are to rebuild and maintain the transport infrastructure we need for continued growth and prosperity.
"This report sets out what has been achieved in the first 18 months since the plan came into effect. As I told the House last week, our objective is to improve Britain's rail and road network. It is a balanced approach, with investment to tackle congestion, improve reliability and make journeys safer. And to do so in a way that is consistent with our wider social and environmental obligations.
"I want to set out some of the key points. Last week, I announced major investment designed to tackle congestion and improve journey times. Schemes will range from major enhancements on some of our key strategic routes, for example the M1 and M6, as well as bypasses and smaller schemes to tackle bottlenecks. We have also introduced measures to better manage existing roads, I also announced further investment in local transport and light rail.
"As the report makes clear, the latest analysis shows that there was more traffic in 2000 than had been thought. That, coupled with the fact that economic growth over the next 10 years is now projected to be higher than anticipated, means that the forecasts made two years ago almost certainly underestimated the future levels of congestion we are faced with.
"Without the investment in the 10-year plan, congestion would have continued to rise unchecked. The report shows that not only will we stem that growth, but deliver considerable reductions in the levels of congestion we would otherwise have seen. In order to tackle congestion, it is necessary to tackle its causes. That is why we are spending more to deal with bottlenecks on the roads system and spending more on public transport.
590
"Measures to tackle congestion are beginning to make an impact. Bus use nationally has begun to grow after years of decline and stagnation. Light rail use has grown by a third over the past two years. The number of rail passengers has increased by nearly a quarter since 1997.
"We need to do more. All this will only be possible because of the commitment to sustained investment year-on-year, and I shall be announcing further measures next year. The House will also wish to know that there has been a 15 per cent reduction in deaths and serious accidents on the roads And for children, there has been a 27 per cent reduction, which is a tribute to all those who have done so much to improve road safety.
"On the railways, public expenditure is now estimated to be £33 billion compared to £29 billion 18 months ago. We are committed to sustaining this investment as it is essential to improve both reliability and safety. But it is also essential that the industry gets a grip of major projects. The public rightly expect us to ensure that their money is well spent and that there is rigorous control of costs.
"Spending in the next few years will rise from £2.1 billion in 2001–02 to £4.3 billion in 2005–06, which, although £312 million less for the Strategic Rail Authority over the coining three years than was forecast earlier this year, is double what was being spent at the start of the plan. This investment will only deliver results if costs in the industry are brought under control. That is why Richard Bowker, the Chairman of the SRA, is quite right to insist that the railways industry gets a proper grip on its costs—something that was conspicuously absent in the past.
"As I have said, the report shows that the railways are carrying nearly a quarter more people than 5 years ago. But we will only sustain that increase in use if we can show that the service is better and, crucially, more reliable. That needs more investment, but also better management of the existing network, which is what the SRA is providing. That is why the SRA is carrying out a review to make sure that the best use is made of existing railway capacity, that projects are more tightly managed and that costs are driven down.
"As the report shows, there is now significant public investment going into the West Coast Main Line which will allow greater reliability. But only because the SRA and the industry showed its determination to exercise rigorous control of the project and its costs.
"Progress is being made elsewhere too. There has been sustained investment year on year—over I billion worth of new rolling stock has been introduced since April 2001 with a further 2,100 vehicles on order. Ninety per cent of the first phase of the new Channel Tunnel rail link is now complete—the first major new rail line for over 100 years. There has been the installation of a new safety system—the train protection warning system—on around 70 per cent of the track and around 90 per cent of the passenger fleet. The

591
power supply for London commuter trains has been upgraded. There has been more maintenance and more renewals.
"There has been investment, yes. But, just as elsewhere, with investment must come reform. Every one of us knows that standards on our railways can be improved. This report shows that we are prepared to spend more, but in return the railway industry has to do far more to drive up standards and reliability. Our priority is to deliver safe and reliable transport that enables people and goods to move around the country as easily and efficiently as possible.
"This plan sets out the investment to achieve that over a 10-year period. There are no quick fixes or easy solutions. Sustained investment is needed year on year and over many decades. We are committed to the long haul, to that sustained investment and improvements in services essential to our continued economic and social prosperity".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.24 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. The report is called the "progress report". I have had a brief look at it and I have to say that perhaps it should be called the "lack of progress report". It represents the final nail in the coffin of John Prescott's 10-year transport plan. That plan is falling apart. Congestion is increasing; one in five trains is delayed; the Tube is in chaos and nationally bus use is falling. Even the Labour-dominated Transport Select Committee has condemned the plan as failing to provide a vision for a more equitable, safer and efficient transport system.
A recent survey comparing us with Europe noted that the average British worker spends twice as long travelling to work in the morning as even his Italian counterpart. In the South East, we are faced with rail fare rises of up to 10 per cent. There will also be fewer trains. The excuse made by the Government and the Secretary of State is that having fewer trains might be more reliable. At the moment, we have a thoroughly illogical system. How can we possibly have a situation where Connex is fined £4.5 million one week for delays, and the following week is handed back £58 million because it is short of cash? That is extraordinary.
I hope that the Government will persuade the Strategic Rail Authority to look at the terms on which the train operating companies have their licences renewed because the basis of making the licences short term is obviously having a major effect on the plans of those companies. Train operating companies have been a successful part of rail privatisation. The noble Lord knows—indeed, the Statement says—that passenger use has increased by 25 per cent since 1997.
Efforts to cut congestion on the roads have failed miserably. The Government cancelled a large part of the road improvement plan that they inherited, with the result that we have chaos in transport. We know
592
that train services could be cut by up to one-fifth next year and that train operating companies have been told to produce plans to run railways on 20 per cent less taxpayer subsidy. Richard Bowker, the Chairman of the SRA, has warned that the £33 billion promised over 10 years is running out and that expansion projects will have to be put on hold. He has admitted that many projects will have to be scaled back.
To cap it all, the Government have announced an airports policy which will have to go back to square one. They lost a case in the High Court, in which the judge decided that it would be wrong to exclude Gatwick from the airport expansion consultation.
Costs in the rail network have soared. Indeed, more money is being pumped into the industry now than under British Rail, but in many areas performance has deteriorated.
The Government promised that they would tackle congestion and improve journey times for motorists. In fact, statistics show that car use has increased and that congestion has worsened. What is more, congestion has risen at a substantially higher rate—probably 10 times higher—than the rise in employment in this country. Highways Agency figures show that not one inch of new bypass was built anywhere in 2001. The Government cancelled bypass programmes when they came into power.
Turning to London Underground, the PPP has still not started this month and the Secretary of State has said that the transfer of London Underground to Transport for London could be delayed by many months.
The Minister's department comes up with surprising excuses. Today, I noticed that a spokesman cited the slow take-up by local authorities of the option of introducing congestion charges as one of the reasons for the continuing jams on major routes. I find that extraordinary. Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that that is the department's policy. The introduction of congestion charges might affect congestion in cities. but the idea that it affects major routes is rather bizarre.
The Statement reads:
"economic growth over the next 10 years is now projected to be higher than anticipated".
I ask: anticipated from when? Perhaps the Minister could explain how that forecast came about.
The Government have made many promises, including another promise of funding for 10 years. However, we know that that is a plan, not a commitment. The dead hand of the Treasury hangs over that and it has no such thing as a 10-year commitment. It has only a short, two or three-year commitment.
I said that the report indicated a lack of progress, but it shows one thing. I commend the Secretary of State for having faced the reality of the congestion in this country and the report finally buries the 10-year

593
plan. It is an admission that the department and the Secretary of State, Mr Darling, have finally joined the real world.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. I am pleased to see the emphasis on getting value for money which is mentioned in the Statement. We should not measure success by the amount of money that is spent but on what that money buys.
My comments are made in both anger and sorrow. I was bitterly opposed to the privatisation of the railways. But we lost that argument and I would describe what we now have as the Treasury or extreme free-market model. That is why when Railtrack was privatised Liberal Democrats said that we would take back a controlling interest in the company. And so did the Labour Party, but it did not fulfil that promise. The company, its consultants and its contractors ripped off—the Government have used that phrase—the public and the taxpayers, which culminated in the catastrophe at Hatfield and all that followed from it. There was an easily foreseen demise of that monstrous company.
Since privatisation, infrastructure costs and delays have exploded and standards have fallen. The number of lawyers and accountants has multiplied, which has been matched by the demise of most of the operators and engineers in the business, who were much cheaper. What have the Government done? They have appointed a regulator, Tom Winsor, but he has failed to regulate at huge cost. The Strategic Rail Authority was created and it has an enormous number of staff—and consultants. There is a Commission for Integrated Transport, which the Government have studiously ignored. How much does the SRA cost?
When money for the railways runs out, why is it always the passengers who must suffer? Fares are increased faster than inflation and services, which are already unpunctual and inferior on much of the system, deteriorate. If the Minister were to visit north-east England and see the rotten trains which run around Leeds, lie would consider them unacceptable in London. They are almost Victorian in their antiquity.
If one keeps a shop, an important lesson to learn is that one should be open for business even at the expense of the backroom staff. On our railways, it seems as though lawyers, accountants, consultants, maintenance contractors and bureaucrats flourish, while the money to run the trains runs out. Why is the axe not taken to the legions of people who do not run the trains? Is there any plan to reduce the costs of those people, or do we have to wait for the forthcoming regulatory review of traffic charges?
Our fares are already the highest in western Europe. The contractual matrix of our railways is immensely complicated and expensive. Yet are there no plans to simplify it? We need fewer, simple, vertically integrated franchises which will be renewed if performance is satisfactory. I have repeatedly stated that we do not need a rail regulator. Safety regulation
594
is overblown and unprofessional. Why are we still waiting for the Hatfield and Potters Bar accident reports?
We have replaced a small team of professional regulators—the former military people who formed Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate—with an army of unaccountable bureaucrats, whether they are supervising their own standards, railway standards or Railtrack's standards. And I remind the Minister that Railtrack has 4,000 standards. An enormous number of people are needed to service the company, and that does not run the railway—it actually stops it running.
I want to ask the Minister one further question. The Statement mentions the bus industry. The bus industry outside London is not growing; only by adding in London figures does one see a growth. Will the Minister please tell us, or perhaps he would care to write to me if he does not know, when we can expect to see bus lane enforcement by cameras extended beyond London? I have been promised that in Written Answers—the phrases vary—later in the year, in the autumn and at the end of the year, but we are getting perilously near to the point when a reply is due.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I must first reply to the Front Benchers. I would rather not, given the qualified rapture with which the Statement was received. But I want to make it clear what the Statement amounts to.
When asked Questions about progress on the 10-year plan, I have said in this House on a number of occasions in recent months that 18 months from the beginning of the plan was too early to make considered judgments. I still take that view. However, there was substantial pressure from another place, from the Transport Select Committee and from the Benches opposite to hear a progress report.
That report is a good deal more detailed and people have not had time to read it, let alone to respond to it. I do not blame noble Lords opposite for that. However, there were two particular reasons for making such a Statement. The first reason was the recognition—I make the acknowledgement to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—that our targets for dealing with congestion were not being achieved. The Statement makes it clear that the figures we had when the 10-year plan was first produced under-estimated the level of congestion at that time. Subsequent figures have confirmed that and therefore that our targets were much more difficult to achieve.
As a result, we have had to look again at our targets for congestion. We can say that without the 10-year plan congestion would increase considerably more than we intend and expect it to increase with the plan. That is not to say that we will be cutting congestion on all our roads. Congestion is a feature of a country such as ours which is densely populated and is intensely metropolitan in the sense that a large proportion of people live in and around the capital city. That is a fact of life.

595
When we look again at our congestion targets, it is true to say that we have had more success in the economy than we expected. Gross domestic product has risen faster, as has in particular household disposable income. As a result, car ownership has risen faster than was expected. Congestion is the bad result of successful economic policies in that sense. That was one reason why it was thought appropriate to report to Parliament at such an early stage in the 10-year plan.
The second reason was the huge upheaval which was forced to take place on the railways. With the failure of Railtrack, which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, so graphically described, it was clear that something had to be done. The administration for Railtrack and the creation of Network Rail is what had to be done. The work that is being done now by the SRA and by Richard Bowker, the chairman, in getting a grip on the cost of rail investment is another good reason for reporting to Parliament.
Mr Bowker has not attempted to mince his words. He said that if things go on as they are and there is no more effective cost control than we have, then certainly some of the projects in the programme will be unaffordable. However, he is determined, as we are, that we should get a grip on costs. The intention of today's statement is to make it clear that our commitment to investment in railways, roads, and local public transport is undimmed as a result of either of these matters.
It has to be recognised that Hatfield caused huge disruption on the railway and enormous extra expense in bringing the rail system up to anywhere near an acceptable standard. It was clear that it was not of such a standard. We therefore volunteered to lay these not particularly welcome facts before Parliament; it was, I believe, the right thing to do. It is not the case, however, that we are making a final judgment on all the aspects of the 10-year plan. I have schedules in front of me of all of the targets in the plan and how far we are achieving them. There are many examples of successful progress towards that plan. The Statement includes, for example, figures on road safety, on deaths and serious injuries on the roads, where we are on target to meet the plan. The time for that will be in 2004 when we have a proper opportunity to consider a substantial part of the plan and to roll the plan forward for a new 10-year period. That is the time at which the judgment of Parliament and the country will be due.
I do not know some of the specific answers—for example, on bus lane enforcement. Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is right that bus use is not growing outside London. Accident reports are a matter for those independent bodies from whom we have commissioned them. We cannot control their timetable.
I hope, from what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is saying and from what he said about privatisation, that he is supportive of what we have done in setting up Network Rail. From his previous comments, I believe that he is.
596
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is right in saying that our travel-to-work times are very long. That is partly because we are a metropolitan country, unlike Germany or Italy for example. In France, which is also metropolitan, the investment made over decades is certainly showing results.
The licence renewal decisions have been taken in the light of the serious risk of disruption that would have taken place if there had been an early ending of licence. Those decisions are taken on very strict conditions.
I am not clear in my note about what the noble Lord said about the airport documents. I shall have to read what he said and write to him about it. I have already responded to the question on congestion charges, and I believe that I have responded realistically and honestly.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Jones: My Lords, does the Minister know that for a generation the people of Wales have felt an absence of fair play over investment in the railway system? Does he believe that the Statement presages substantial investment in the Holyhead-Crewe-London Euston line? Is he able to say whether the Virgin West Coast Main Line rolling stock, the Pendolino trains, will be dedicated to that route? If he cannot provide a specific amount of the £34 billion earmarked for rail investment in Wales, will he to write to me with such a sum?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write to my noble friend. That is not a matter covered in the progress report.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I certainly welcome the good intentions of the Government to reduce congestion and to improve the road system. The list of projects in the report is formidable but I am sure that, for each project in the plan, all noble Lords will have three or four schemes that are not in the plan.
I ask the Minister one question. Have the Government ever seriously considered an outer ring road round London, perhaps as a toll road, to relieve the congested and often gridlocked M25 and, if not, why not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, not to my knowledge. I do not think this or any preceding government have considered that. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, will know that substantial expenditure on the M25 is included in the 10-year programme.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, may I press the Minister harder on the West Coast Main Line on which many of us commute every week? When shall we see the investment to complete the upgrading of the track and when can we expect some new rolling stock between London and Scotland?

597
Secondly, will he bear in mind that the main artery by road from London to Scotland is the M6? Only six miles of that route, between Carlisle and the Scottish border, is not motorway. When can we expect that to be upgraded to motorway standard?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we took a decision on the West Coast Main Line which attracted a good deal of flak: that, rather than rely on weekend and night working throughout the upgrading of the line, we would face the unpopularity of closing part of the line for periods of several weeks, starting next year. That certainly will speed up what had been unacceptably slow progress.
I think it would be unwise for me to go further than the information which is already in the progress report about completion dates, but they will certainly come about quicker than would have been the case.
There is no information that I can immediately find relating to the M6. I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, with the best will in the world, the Conservative Opposition have not advanced one constructive argument for a coherent transport policy? Does he not agree that all modes of transport have to conform to such a policy?
Does he also agree that the Statement did not deal with air transport? Is it not internationally unacceptable that post-11th September—and I speak here as the president of BALPA—allies of the United States have been given huge subsidies by the United States Government? Does that not give them unacceptable advantages so far as European traffic is concerned? What are the Government doing about that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before I reply to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I have the information to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Monro, in regard to the M6. I believe that he is referring to the Carlisle-to-Guardsmill section.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, yes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the expected delivery date is 2007–08.
Turning to reply to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, the question of our negotiations with the United States Government and their aviation authorities is not covered in the progress report. The only aspects of air transport covered in the progress report are air traffic control, airport policy and airport improvements. I can assure my noble friend that the issues he raised are being covered in the ongoing discussions we are having with the American authorities.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that building more roads and widening existing ones will simply add to congestion
598
unless these measures are accompanied by road pricing and traffic congestion measures? Is not the lesson we have learnt from previous road-building practices that it takes only about one year for new capacity to be entirely used up by new traffic?
As to the railways, is my noble friend aware that yesterday Virgin ran its first passenger train with the Pendolino stock from London to Manchester, completing the journey in two hours and nine minutes in one direction and two hours and six minutes in the other? I should declare an interest in that I was an invited guest on the train. Does my noble friend agree that this is undoubtedly an indication that at last the problems of the West Coast Main Line are being addressed and that there is hope that passengers will get the improved services to which my noble friend Lord Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Monro, referred?
Does my noble friend also accept that the commitment to better value for money and greater reliability that the Secretary of State has shown in his Statement today is shared entirely by Mr Bowker, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority? Can my noble friend confirm that when the SRA delivers its case for rail in 2004, the arguments it is likely to contain about the industry's long-term needs for investment will be sympathetically considered in the light of the 2004 spending review?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all kinds of wild statements have been made about the supposed shift from rail to road in the Government's policies. The figures given in the Statement, and certainly those in the report, make it clear that we are not in any sense returning to the policy of predict and provide that my noble friend Lord Faulkner is rightly attacking. We recognise that there are certain pinch points which cause exceptional congestion and which can be tack led by judicious road provision, but this is not the U-turn described in the press.
I have been too busy reading government papers to look at the newspapers and I did not know about the Pendolino train runs. I am glad to hear it. I can certainly confirm that it is Mr Bowker's intention, with the Government's support, to gain control over costs in investment in the railways. Without in any way seeking to anticipate the 2004 spending review, it is quite clear that his success in doing so will determine how much will be achieved from investment in railways from 2004 onwards.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned road congestion several times, as did my noble friend Lord Faulkner. Has the time not come to start looking at urban road charging as a means of reducing congestion? My noble friend announced the building of some new roads, which will be welcome to many people, but I am sure that he will agree that the congestion figures will go up and up. Is it not time at least to start looking at introducing inter-urban road charges as a means of restraining the unfettered growth that might otherwise occur?

599
My second question relates to rail and freight. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. The Statement did not mention any kind of freight. Freight operators are concerned about road congestion and the working time directive, which would indicate that they are quite keen to transfer freight to rail. My noble friend did not mention the targets in the original 10-year plan for a growth of 50 per cent in rail passenger numbers and 80 per cent in rail freight volumes. Are the Government still sticking to these targets? If not, what are the new targets?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, inter-city road charging is not a matter for the progress report. I am not saying that that issue will be ruled out from consideration when we come to the full review of the 10-year plan in 2004, but clearly it is a policy matter which has not been included in what is essentially a factual progress report of what has happened in the past 18 months.
As to the rail freight targets, we believe that it should be possible to increase the market share to 10 per cent by 2010 from 7 per cent now—which is indeed, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, an 80 per cent increase in rail freight—provided that the rail freight companies can deliver improvements in performance and efficiency. There has already been a 7 per cent increase in 2001–02 compared with 2000–01.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some noble Lords feel that it has been a valuable exercise to have a progress report on the 10-year plan? Indeed, it demonstrates the importance of the bi-partisan support three years ago for the 10-year plan. Clearly events change the context in which a 10-year plan has to be rolled forward, but we are now in the position where, against this framework, we can see some of the things that have gone right and some of the things that have gone wrong. If we had not had a 10-year plan we would be floundering around not quite knowing which way we were going. The 10-year plan provides a benchmark against which we can see, for example, that we have got our inputs right but that our outputs are not necessarily right at the moment, and how we have to improve standards in rolling forward the 10-year plan.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right to remind the House that the 10-year plan was introduced less than two years ago with all-party support. All parties therefore should be interested in ensuring that the 10-year plan succeeds, rather than the more negative response we heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, today. This is very much an interim report which was called for because of specific circumstances. I am sure that what my noble friend Lord Lea said will be applicable to the review in 2004.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
6.58 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, before we go further, can the Minister give an explanation in regard to the national guidance notes, the framework for guidance? A rather intriguing situation has arisen. When Hansard sought to ensure that I had been properly quoted in the previous debate, it produced a copy of the framework for guidance that it is working to, which is in the Printed Paper Office, dated 15th November 2002. I have been working from a framework for guidance which I got from the web because it was not otherwise available dated the same date, 15th November 2002. These two sets of guidance notes are different both in format and content. I have taken a long look at them during the adjournment and I think I am correct in suggesting that the copy to which I have been referring is the correct draft guidance. If that is the case, we have the wrong draft guidance in the Printed Paper Office. As this goes to the heart of what we are all debating, can we please have an explanation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it would have been very helpful if the noble Baroness had given me notice of her question. That is the normal practice. I cannot give her an answer because I have not seen the document that she has obtained from the web. I can only say that I will investigate the matter and let her know.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we are all suffering from a lack of notice. I have hardly had time to seek out the Minister while I have been trying to understand, working with Hansard, why I have one document and Hansard has another. In the circumstances, because the support systems were not available, I had neither the time, the opportunity nor the wherewithal to notify the Minister.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, in those circumstances, how can we discuss a Bill when we do not know what we are talking about? I totally concede that this is not the first occasion on which that has happened in your Lordships' House, but perhaps it would be advisable to wait for five minutes while the noble Baroness's advisers get their acts together?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am perfectly happy to adjourn for that purpose. However, I do not consider it to be necessary, and I should like to discover whether the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that it is necessary. Quite frankly, we do not need the framework on the guidance in front of us while we

601
debate the next group of amendments. We have already spent a great deal of time on the Bill and are far behind the point that we had hoped to reach. We should now make progress. While we debate the next group of amendments, I will ask my officials to consider the copy that the noble Baroness has obtained from the web.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am content with that. Notwithstanding our best efforts, we have clearly taken longer than most of us had hoped, and it is laudable that so many noble Lords have taken part in this important debate. From Her Majesty's Opposition Benches, I am certainly content to accept that we should not adjourn, but may we please have an explanation at the earliest convenience?
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I echo the noble Baroness's words. We absolutely agree and would not want to adjourn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee on Clause 4.
[Amendments' Nos. 69 to 72 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 3, line 12, after "children" insert "and other vulnerable persons"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to make a short but important point. Clause 4(2)(d) states that one of the licensing objectives will be
"the protection of children from harm".
Within that objective, my amendment would include "other vulnerable persons" and seeks to probe the issue of whether other classes of vulnerable persons may require similar special protection in the context of licensing and licensed premises, one example of which could be elderly persons. I am sure that other Members of the Committee are able to suggest other particularly vulnerable groups that would merit similar protection.
I have no doubt that during the extensive preparation of the Bill by both the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Government have considered whether, in addition to children, other groups might merit special mention in the licensing objectives. They have evidently decided that none do. My amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to place on record the Government's thinking on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment and have only one question to ask on this group of amendments concerning children; namely, whether the Government will still make provision for landlords, at their own discretion, to allow children, accompanied or unaccompanied, to be present on licensed premises.
Baroness Blackstone: The four licensing objectives in Clause 4 were developed after extensive, detailed consultation with all stakeholders and a lengthy review of the existing law, conducted between 1998 and 1999. The result was a clear focus on the prevention of disorder and disturbance; the assurance of public
602
safety in places where people gather together for leisure purposes; and the protection of children from physical, moral and psychological harm. Amendment No. 73 seeks to add to the objective relating to the protection of children, "other vulnerable persons".
Perhaps we may leave the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, until we debate the group of amendments that focuses on children.
It is very difficult to define the term "other vulnerable persons". I am not quite sure how the noble Baroness would define it. For example, does it include people suffering from mental illness or from alcoholism? Children can be recognised and identified by licensees and other staff in licensed premises. Many now carry proof-of-age cards. But can we realistically expect a licensee or a member of his staff to recognise a sober alcoholic who may be tempted to fall off the wagon? It is a very fine aspiration, but it is not a duty that could be imposed on a licence-holder. Therefore, it would be difficult—
The Earl of Onslow: I thank the Minister for giving way, but she is not answering the question. There is a duty on the licensing authority to consider what conditions it should take into account when it issues a licence. It is not a question whether the publican in the Pig and Whistle in Scunthorpe knows the difference between a drunken paraplegic and a sober professor. It is the duty of the licensing authority. Will the Minister please stick to the point?
Baroness Blackstone: I am doing my best to answer what I understand to be the noble Baroness's amendment, which is to add "other vulnerable persons" to the group. The licensing authority will not be able to decide whether or not it makes sense to grant a licence on the basis that there may be a slight possibility that other vulnerable persons may turn up in any particular licensed premises. I understand that this amendment seeks to protect vulnerable people by the way in which the licensing law actually operates and its effect on the licensee. I assume that that is the point of this amendment. If I am wrong about that, I apologise.
I end by saying that, in framing the objectives, the Committee must focus on the need to translate them into meaningful steps that can be taken by the licensee. They should not be rather vague aspirations, but matters that can become the terms and conditions to be attached by the licensing authority to any licence that is granted to the licensee. I hope that that makes the position a little clearer.
The Bill already provides that a drunken person cannot be sold more alcohol. However, it is both difficult and impractical to have an objective that seeks to go beyond that provision, no matter how well-meaning the intention; and I entirely accept that it is a good intention. The purpose of the objective of protecting children from harm is very clearly focused on a well-defined group—children under 18 years of age—but that cannot be said of the concept of "vulnerable persons".

603
Having explained the problems that the Government see, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I entirely agree with her: this is an important objective. We are pleased that the protection of children from harm is one of the key objectives for the licensing authority to bear in mind.
As the Minister has said, the amendment points up the difficult responsibility that will rest with licensing authorities when coming to terms with their objectives and deciding what is best, on balance, for the various licensed premises within their locality. Our aim was to gain clarity as to whether the Government thought it important to focus on children, on those who have difficulties with alcohol or, as I suggested, on elderly persons.
It is helpful to have the Minister's response on record so that licensing authorities can appreciate the parameters within which they are working. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved amendment No. 74:
Page 3, line 12, leave out "from harm"
The noble Baroness said: This, again, is a probing amendment. It relates to Clause 4(2)(d) but deals with a different point. We are seeking to understand the meaning of,
"the protection of children from harm—"
this being one of the four licensing objectives to which licensing authorities must constantly refer when carrying out their functions. We want to understand exactly what kinds of harm the Government have in mind.
We see from paragraph 38 of the Explanatory Notes that the Government do not intend this provision to apply in the context of physical safety. In a piece of drafting which is typically obtuse, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport states:
"The fourth licensing objective relates to harm to children beyond matters relating to physical safety".
It does not, however, go on to state the kinds of harm that the Government have in mind. Do they have in mind the harm that may be caused by alcohol; or by passive smoking, so that licensed premises may be required to install smoke extractors or provide nonsmoking areas? Do they mean the protection of children from individuals who might seek to cause them harm? The Minister may say that the Government envisage all these factors falling within the definition of "harm".
How do the Government envisage individual local authorities interpreting such a broad provision? Is there not at least some scope for widely differing interpretations of the law because of the extremely broad nature of the drafting, so that something that is deemed harmful to children by one licensing authority will not be deemed harmful by another.
I am not for one minute saying that we should not take the protection of children into account. I am inviting the Minister to set out more fully the Government's position on the kinds of harm that they believe are relevant in this context.
I should also appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to why, as stated in the Explanatory Notes, the Government do not believe that children's physical safety should come within the concept of "harm", and why, if that is so, it is not made plain on the face of the Bill. The only reference to it occurs in the Explanatory Notes.
I refer to a letter dated 13th November 2002 from the Secretary of State. It begins, "Dear colleagues", and states:
"I expect the Bill to deliver inter alia reductions in under-age purchase and consumption of alcohol and the long-term damage that does to children in terms of educational attainment, poor health, job prospects and the propensity to commit crime".
We are pleased that the Bill is supposed to deliver this; but the question is: how? These are all aspects of "harm".
We believe that the present law concerning the consumption of alcohol by children is deeply confusing to parents. But how does liberalising the law with regard to children protect them from harm? I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may refer to a briefing note sent by ACPO to a number of noble Lords prior to Second Reading which makes specific reference to children. ACPO expressed concern that exposing children at what is a crucial stage in their development to an environment in which drink is consumed might be likely to lead them towards a drinking culture—as ACPO expresses it—which the Government's forthcoming alcohol strategy may wish to target. So there is an inconsistency in government policy here. On the one hand, we are moving slowly towards a strategy for reducing the harm that alcohol does; on the other, we propose to make it easier for children to enter such establishments and to be drawn into a drinking culture.
ACPO goes on to set out its serious concern about the position of unaccompanied young people in licensed premises, as they will be in what is essentially an adult environment and will be exposed to moral harm and danger. That is one answer to the question put by the noble Baroness. It is not simply a question of the consumption of alcohol but of the uninhibited conduct into which young people may be led as a result of consuming too much alcohol.
ACPO states that it is aware that some European countries have a relaxed attitude to children on licensed premises, but it goes on to point out that in Europe there is a completely different approach to drinking. It says that although it may be beneficial for us to move towards a similar environment in this country, habits are deeply ingrained here and it is unlikely that we shall see a sudden transformation as

605
a result of the Government's licensing policy into the kind of drinking culture that prevails in, for example, France or Italy.
While on the subject of harm, perhaps I may refer to a study that was undertaken in Liverpool between one of the foremost clubs there and the accident and emergency department in the renowned local hospital, where patients were brought from a particular nightclub. It was found that, among 777 patients included in the study, assault accounted for most presentations—57 per cent; lacerations were the most common injuries; and alcohol was the most common intoxicant associated with attendance at the A&E department. So when we talk about "harm", we are talking about a whole range of possibilities that may affect young people as a result of encouraging them to take part in the late-night drinking culture that the Bill introduces.
We can already see the effects of such a culture in London. As I recounted on the first day in Committee, I spent a night going round central London with the police, first from the West End Central police station and, secondly, from the Charing Cross station and observing the behaviour of young people on the streets in the neighbourhoods of Piccadilly Circus, Leicester Square, Soho, Covent Garden and Trafalgar Square. It would be extremely difficult for anyone, whether a licensee or the police, to know the age of certain young people, particularly girls dressed over their age. I should not like to be in the position of a licensee attempting to distinguish between someone who is just under 18 and someone who is just over 18. The literature shows that it is common for under-age drinking to occur in establishments such as these clubs, where the lighting is very poor and the activities are so frenetic that it would be impossible as a practical matter for the person serving the drinks—
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I support what he says. Most of the young people concerned have false identification, which can be bought on the Internet. So even if asked for identification, they have something to show. I agree with the noble Lord about young people being overdressed, and with all his other points. The poor licensee has the worst problem, as he is offered false identification.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord makes a good point. The Portman Group has introduced a scheme to issue proof-of-age cards to young people. Does the Minister know whether those cards are used? Has she discussed it with club operators? Has she talked to them about the difficulties, and their problems, in preventing underage drinking? Does she know about the false identity cards that some people carry, or have those matters been left to chance? We are exposing young people to considerable harm of various kinds. I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment to enable us to highlight the problem.
The Earl of Onslow: I have considerable sympathy with the Government on this issue, because it is a
606
difficult one. There is a culture north of Calais or thereabouts to go out and get absolutely rat-arsed, to give a frequently used expression. One need only watch television programmes featuring 18 year-olds in Ibiza to see that their sole aim is to get into the state that I referred to—it is sufficient to use the expression once; twice would be insensitive.
How do we adapt? I do not know. Garibaldi had British volunteers who all behaved terribly badly, so he sent them home. He could not stand them getting into the state that I referred to. The soldiers in the 1914 war, when they went on leave if they were lucky enough to survive, drank wine in a tankard in the belief that it was a pint of beer. There is a culture in Nordic countries of getting completely sloshed.
Harm must be defined. Licensing authorities must take that into account. I accept that I am being beastly to the noble Baroness by taking the issue beyond the context of the clause. But those aspects must he borne in mind. Frankly, I do not know how to. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, brought them up in a better informed, and perhaps less flowery, way than I did.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to everyone who participated in this short debate for raising an issue that concerns us all. The Government's licensing objective in Clause 4(2)(d), which focuses on children, has been carefully drafted. It is intended to assure the protection of children from physical, moral and psychological harm. The physical safety of children is covered by Clause 4(2)(b), which relates to public safety in relation to licensed premises.
This amendment focuses on the particular needs of children. I share the views of all noble Lords who participated and emphasise that we need to be concerned not only with children's physical safety but their moral and psychological health. Alcohol consumption is an important issue. This is a liberalising measure to create a healthier environment for children on licensed premises. The Bill tightens significantly the law on alcohol consumption by minors. We have offered greater access, with a strict prohibition on consumption anywhere on licensed premises, which is not the case at present. An exception applies where 16 to 18 year-olds, accompanied by adults, consume alcohol at a meal. Alcohol consumption by children is strictly controlled by the Bill.
The Earl of
Onslow: I am a seeker of information. The word "meal" summons up a picture of parents and kiddies dining at a restaurant table. Down the line, could the definition of a meal broaden to include stuffing a sandwich into one's face while sitting on a bar stool?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am well aware that the definition of a meal may be in the eyes of the partaker. Let me be clear: we are talking about the judgments taken by a licensing authority about the basis on which

607
children are consuming food in a pub. Clearly, the licensing authorities would not be satisfied that a packet of crisps is a meal. They will have guidance; they will be concerned about children's health and will be expected to set a framework in which a meal means sitting down with adults in civilised circumstances for a knife-and-fork meal.
That is the premise on which we seek to tackle the issue that, rightly, has been identified. We all have anxieties about our stand-up-and-drink culture. I am glad that the culture has not been apostrophised in this debate as being British. It is wider. The phrase "Nordic" may not be all-encompassing, but we know that the culture obtains differently in northern Europe than in the south. We are all aware of this feature.
How should we improve young people's approach to alcohol? Surely by seeking to mirror, in many ways, the successful, different culture of countries which we admire where children accompanied by adults drink alcohol at meals on licensed premises that are part of a considerably more civilised framework than ours at present. We emphasise that we seek to ensure that all aspects of children's health—physical, moral and psychological—should be taken into account. That is why the Bill is drafted as it is. Its wording should be retained. If we leave open the wording as the amendment suggests, we leave open the potential for damaging uncertainty in the interpretation of the Bill. But all noble Lords have emphasised how important it is that it be clearly established, clearly understood and part of the framework within which licences are granted.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about identifying young people's age. That problem is always with us. In the United States, age identification must be shown and is often challenged by barmen. We often hear stories of how rigorous the system is. Although it is rigorous, it does not protect against the problem of document forgery, which was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. We recognise that the forgery of documents to adopt a false identity is a difficult problem for police in the most stringent circumstances, such as access to a country, let alone seeking to buy a drink in a bar. However, the Government welcome the identity card launched by the Portman Group, which is a signal of an earnest intention to try to prevent direct access to alcohol by young people who know that they are breaking the law at the time of purchase. We commend that move.
The noble Baroness said that her amendment was a probing device. I can reassure her that one of the four objectives in the licensing arrangements under the Bill is the protection of children from harm. We are expressing that aim both precisely and in the widest possible terms, not just in terms of physical safety. We bear in mind not only all the representations that have been made to us by a whole range of organisations concerned with the welfare of children but also those made in tonight's debate. On that basis, and with those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: If they really want to prevent harm to young people, why have not the Government included in the Bill provision for the compulsory production of proof-of-age cards based on biodata in exactly the same way as has been done in the case of asylum seekers? The latter all possess identity cards, which give them access to benefits under the supplementary benefits system. We are all concerned about the harm that may be caused to children through being able to enter establishments and purchase alcohol when they are under 18. Therefore, as the technology exists to prevent that happening, why is there no such provision in the Bill?
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may assist the Minister. It seems to me to be very simple. We are saying that children should not be allowed to drink alcohol under the age of 18. Therefore, they must have an identity card to show that they are under that age. The whole object of the child is to persuade the barman that he is over the age of 18. If he is over 18, he can say, "I don't have an identity card. Therefore, I do not need to be banned from drinking because I am over 18". It is a different situation from that of an immigrant; it is a totally different concept and does not help the Minister at all.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am not seeking to arbitrate between two conflicting views on the Opposition Benches. Perhaps I may make the obvious point. The Licensing Bill is scarcely a Bill through which we would introduce the whole issue and concept of identity cards, upon which there are many divisions in our society as regards their merits. Indeed, I should think that there are probably many divisions on the Liberal Democrat Benches regarding the desirability of identity cards.
I was not seeking to try to introduce a national system of identity cards for children under the age of 18; I was seeking to commend the voluntary moves by the Portman Group to address aspects of the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, rightly pointed out, there are always difficulties with this kind of exercise. I hope that the noble Lord recognises that if we were to go down the road of dealing with the real issues surrounding the concept of identity cards, we would do so through a separate piece of legislation introduced by the Home Office—a department for which I do not have responsibility. That is my response to the noble Lord.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I believe that I have bad news for everyone in this Chamber; indeed, news about which my noble friend Lord Hodgson is already well aware and to which he referred earlier. Probably all children and young people aged between 14 and 15 know exactly what they need to do to obtain a fake identity card. In fact, almost all the premises that they enter quite sensibly and quite rightly ask for some form of identification. It is not something that is peculiar to the

609
United States; it is commonplace and common practice in this country. Publicans are doing all that they cart to work within the law. On a nightly basis, they have great difficulty in discriminating between young people on the question of age. I have a daughter aged 15 who could easily pass as a mature 21 year-old. She tells me that she and others ought to have identity cards. It is a status symbol, as much as anything else, to have an ID card that one can buy through the Internet.
There is a problem to be addressed. It is one of the reasons for raising the issue. Consumption of alcohol by the young is not, I fear, covered in the Bill. I have every sympathy, as I believe is the case with all noble Lords, with what the Government are seeking to achieve in this legislation. We want liberalisation of our licensing laws. In fact, I should probably declare an interest here in that my father was a wine merchant for 43 years. His belief was, and still rightly remains, that young people should be encouraged to drink, albeit in small quantities, from a fairly young age, as we were, I believe that that is right. I understand that that is what the Government are seeking to achieve. However, that was experienced in our own home where it was measured and carefully considered.
We are talking about children and young people being allowed to enter pubs and licensed premises—perhaps I should say "hang out"—unaccompanied. Yes, I understand that the idea is to help change the culture of going out to get drunk. But our concern is that this approach may not achieve that aim. Behind this probing amendment is the concern that we are giving local authorities an enormous responsibility under these provisions. They will, of course, ably accept and take on such responsibility; but when things go wrong, as I am sure they might, this will rebound on local authorities. Therefore, it is only right that they should have as much information from the Government and as much understanding of the parameters as possible.
Local authorities should also be aware of what it is that they are supposed to achieve to ensure that licensed premises within their localities are doing the right thing by local residents, by the industry and by children. That is the reason for tabling this probing amendment. I do not wish to take the matter further. We are concerned for the future, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 37 minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Access to Justice Act 1999 (Solicitors' Practising Certificates) Order 2002
7.28 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [First Report from the Joint committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I should also declare an interest as my partner is a solicitor in practice.
It is proposed that this instrument be made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor by Section 47(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 to amend Section 11(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974. The order is subject to affirmative resolution by virtue of Section 47(2)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
Section 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 gives the Law Society the power to require solicitors to hold a practising certificate in order to practise. Section 11(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 provides that the Law Society may charge a fee for the issuing of practising certificates. Section 11(3) of the Act provides that all moneys raised by the issuing of practising certificates,
"shall be applied in such manner as the Society may think fit for the purpose of the Society, including facilitating the acquisition of legal knowledge".
The purpose of the order is to ensure that the application of fees raised by the Law Society from compulsory subscriptions is, unlike hitherto, restricted to those purposes which the Law Society performs in the public interest, and from which both the public and the Government benefit.
In seeking approval to this order, I make it clear that the Government believe that it is right that a professional body should be able to spend money generated from compulsory subscriptions on certain activities only. However, by the same context, the Government have no wish whatever to stifle the many useful functions in the public interest which the Law Society currently performs, and from which both the public and the Government benefit.
The Lord Chancellor made this clear to Parliament during the passage of the Access to Justice Act when he said:
'practice support' or practice management and the `raising and maintenance of standards' will be covered by compulsory fees … These activities are entirely compatible with the role of the regulatory body".—[Official Report, 14/7/99; col. 458.]
Section 47(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 provides that the Law Society should be restricted in its application of fees raised from the issuing of practising certificates to,
"(a) the purposes of the regulation, education and training of solicitors and those wishing to become solicitors, or (b) both the se purposes and such other purposes as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate".

611
Proposals made to the Lord Chancellor by the Law Society have been considered by the Legal Services Consultative Panel. The panel recommended that the wording proposed by the Law Society should be adopted in any order made under Section 47(1) of the 1999 Act.
The Lord Chancellor has in turn considered the Law Society's proposals and the advice given to him by the Legal Services Consultative Panel. He has also been very diligent and taken account of the desirability of approving purposes for the Law Society which are broadly similar to those already approved in respect of the General Council of the Bar.
The Lord Chancellor has concluded that, subject to a number of drafting changes, the Law Society's proposals should remain essentially unchanged. Those proposals have subsequently been agreed by the Law Society and the Master of the Rolls. The order now before the House would therefore amend Section 11(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 by specifying revised purposes for which the Law Society may apply any funds raised from the issuing of practising certificates.
The revised purposes are: the regulation, accreditation, education and training of solicitors and those wishing to become solicitors, including the maintaining and raising of their professional standards and giving advice on practice management and practical support for solicitors' practice; the participation by the Law Society in law reform and the legislative process; the provision by solicitors, and those wishing to become solicitors, of free legal services to the public; the promotion of the protection by law of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and the promotion by the Law Society of professional interests through discussion with, and participation in the activities of, relevant national and international bodies, governments and the legal professions of other jurisdictions.
It is my view that all of these activities, which are already undertaken by the Law Society on the basis of subscriptions from its members, are useful functions, clearly in the public interest. It would, of course, continue to be open to the Law Society to pursue other, representative activities provided that it does so on the basis of funds raised from other sources.
In my view, the provisions of this order amending Section 11(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 are compatible with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Since an amendment of this nature, adding to the purposes for which fees might be raised by the issuing of practising certificates, was anticipated during the Access to Justice Act 1999 implementation debates, and since Section 47(1) makes specific provision for the exercise of these amending powers, I invite the House to approve the order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, all the purposes set out in Article 2 of the order seem to be wholly appropriate
612
purposes for the Law Society to spend the money it raises from fees for practising certificates. There is, of course, a question as to whether there are any further purposes on which it might also be appropriate to spend money. but the Law Society made it clear in the brief which it circulated that this order corresponds very closely to its own proposal. In those circumstances, it seems that there is very little to be said other than that I am happy to support the order.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for such a careful and comprehensive explanation of the order. I do indeed recall our debate on the Access to Justice Bill, as it then was, in 1999, when we pressed the Government to ensure that any regulations should be by affirmative order. So this is an important opportunity to look at what the Government are proposing. This also gives us the opportunity to look at the overall regulatory framework governing the legal profession and at the Access to Justice Act itself and the way in which it is working.
First, however, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to be praised for closely following the Law Society's own suggestion on the terms of the order, which will enable the society properly to carry out its important regulatory activities while at the same time continuing to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. In view of the overall debate about standards in the legal profession, I would strongly urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to ensure that the core values of solicitors—independence of advice, integrity and the avoidance of conflicts of' interest—must be preserved.
I turn for a moment to the framework within which the order is set out. A number of well argued responses, in particular one from the Law Society itself, were made to the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper entitled In the Public Interest? As the president of the Law Society, Carolyn Kirby, has warned, client protection must be at the heart of any changes, and choice must not come at the expense of quality and access to justice. Currently, however, a shadow of uncertainty hangs over the legal profession, caused by some wide-ranging and fundamental proposals. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will move swiftly to lift the shadow of uncertainty. It would be helpful if the Minister, if he felt able to do so, could give us at least an indication of the timetable by which the Lord Chancellor intends to proceed.
I turn to access to justice itself. This morning, there was a very worrying report in the Daily Telegraph that the cost of the compensation culture, which in many ways has been exacerbated by introduction of the new no win, no fee arrangements, now amounts to £10,000 million a year. That is an alarming figure. If access to justice is to be meaningful, we really do need to ensure that steps are taken to improve access.
In our debates on the Access to Justice Bill, I recall the criticism, particularly from noble and learned Lords, and especially from the Cross Benches, about the introduction of the new no win, no fee

613
arrangements with virtually no research, combined with a lack of proper resources for the civil justice reforms. I believe that those arrangements have been introduced at a very high price.
I praise—as I have on previous occasions—our reforming Lord Chancellor. However, I urge the Government to go back to the three Rs, as reform is truly successful only when it is preceded by proper research and when sufficient resources are made available to make the new system work. So reform, research and resources are a proper prescription. I recall hearing a very convincing speech last week by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, in the Second Reading in this Chamber of the Courts Bill, in which he stressed that there was a serious lack of resources to enable access to justice to work.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, declared an interest, I should remind noble Lords that I am senior partner at Beachcroft Wansbroughs. That firm undertakes a great deal of work which closely mirrors the access to justice provisions. However, I feel strongly that the no win, no fee supermarket mentality combined with the virtual overnight abolition of civil legal aid has been a bad deal for the consumer. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who knows this subject very well indeed, that the public must have access to legal services which are reliable, trustworthy, good value and, above all, a model of excellence. In signifying our agreement to the order I hope that the noble Lord will respond to the points that I raised.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their kind and generous contributions and in particular for their broad agreement with what is proposed.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for skilfully travelling slightly wider than the remit of the order. He is right to praise my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who has achieved many great reforms during his period in office and will continue to do so. The order ensures that the Law Society can carry out the valuable educational work to which the noble Lord referred. He is right to remind us of the importance and the value of the three Rs of reform, research and resources. It is right to place on record the fact that the Government have rigorously followed those three Rs in this field. We have rightly been praised for our reforming programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has a longer experience of government than I and will be aware of the importance of ensuring that policies are well researched before they reach the statute book. At all times we must be mindful of resources. The Government have allocated many resources to the area of public law. We recognise the importance of resources as a means of enabling people to gain access to justice.
I agreed with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the compensation culture, although one should always be a little wary of believing
614
everything that one reads in the Daily Telegraph other than the sports pages, which are undoubtedly excellent.
I turn to the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the timetable for the consultation paper. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the consultation period concluded on 22nd November this year. We need to analyse the contributions and take some care in planning our response to them. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that the measure needs to be well researched and factually based. We intend to issue a response in the spring of next year and a report setting out subsequent proposals in the summer. Although that may lead to a period of uncertainty it should not last too long. The issues which have been raised in the public interest merit full and careful consideration. I wish to put that point on the record. I am most grateful for the contributions that have been made to the debate. I trust that the House is satisfied that the order is satisfactory.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg: to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.37 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.54 to 8.37 p.m]

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Before I finally move that Motion, I shall respond to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about the guidance framework. The correct framework is the one that the noble Baroness has been using, which I am glad to say is on the website. That version was also distributed at the all-party briefing meeting on 21st November and was sent to the noble Baroness by officials when the Bill was introduced. Unfortunately, a slightly earlier draft of the framework was placed in the Printed Paper Office in error. It was not significantly different, but I apologise for the fact that an incorrect version was put in the Printed Paper Office by mistake. That has now been rectified; the wrong version has been torn up and shredded, and there are now plenty of' copies of the right version in the Printed Paper Office.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee on Clause 4.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) the protection of the environment"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 80.
These are probing amendments that seek to establish why the Government do not view the protection of the environment as an appropriate issue for consideration in licensing policy. Those of us who have been familiar over the years with the ambience of an urban area, such as parts of the City of Westminster, know the problems that a proliferation of licensed premises can make for a local environment. Westminster Council's "Clean Up Soho" campaign is one example of a local authority using the various powers at its disposal to improve the environment of an area without detriment to its thriving social life. Will the Bill give local authorities any leeway in that respect? If not, is it a matter that the Government might be prepared to consider further?
The same arguments might apply to a rural area. One can imagine circumstances in which a quiet riverside scene might be considered environmentally inappropriate for some kinds of entertainment or licensed activity. Would a local authority be able to take into account the potential impact on a delicate natural environmental or an historic building, for example, when determining its policies? Will it be illegal for an authority to try to protect such vulnerable areas in that way? It would be helpful to have clarification from the Minister.
Equally—here I speak also to Amendment No. 80—can the Minister explain the rationale of the words in Clause 13(2)(d) on the protection of the environment? Amendment No. 80 would remove from paragraph (d) the provisions applying to the work of local authority officers supervising licensed premises; namely, as the paragraph states,
"minimising or preventing the risk of pollution of the environment".
It would apply those words to the licensing objectives overall. How can the local authority officers act within those powers if those objectives are not included as part of the overall objectives of the licensing policy envisaged by the Bill?
There appears to be an inconsistency at least in including the words in paragraph (d) and resisting them in this regard. It sends mixed signals to those who will be responsible for operating under the framework of the Act. The protection of the environment is one of the key roles of any local authority and it commands the widest public support. Can the Minister explain why that overarching imperative should not come into play in the operation of policy under the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: This issue is of much concern to many local authorities, especially those that have lobbied Members of the Committee. However, I do not support the amendment because there is a slight difficulty in saying to what extent the polluter pays principle would be at work in this regard. The licensee and the licensed premises are often not responsible for the damage to the environment and the local area; that
616
is caused by the patrons of the premises. Litter is inherently connected with late-night fast-food outlets. Will further provisions apply to them and the littering for which they are responsible?
Lord Avebury: My noble friend rightly refers to fast-food restaurants. That was a source of enormous nuisance in the London Borough of Westminster, which the noble Baroness mentioned. She will remember that when Councillor Simon Milton made his presentation he emphasised the enormous quantities of rubbish that are littered on streets by people coming out of fast-food restaurants.
Fortunately, that has been ameliorated by police action in closing down some of the establishments that operated until well after the closing time of pubs and clubs. Formerly, Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald's and so on remained open until four o'clock and people came out of drinking establishments, walked over to the fast-food outlet, got a hamburger and immediately threw the litter on the streets. As a result, the council had—and still has—to employ a number of workers who go round in the middle of the night sweeping up the streets. They have to cope with even worse pollution, from people who vomit on the streets, and even worse—I shall not mention some of the things that those workers have to clear up because it is so disgusting. That is not the sort of environment that anyone would like to live near. Fortunately, in that area there are not many residential establishments.
The assistant commissioner of the metropolitan police told us at the same meeting that that kind of environment is spreading into the suburbs. The late night culture has spread to places such as Romford, Watford, Ealing, Croydon and so on, where clubs are accompanied by fast-food establishments. When tourists arrive the following morning, council officials are still trying to clear up the mess.
The principle of the polluter pays does not apply because local authorities may well be faced with large additional costs of rectifying the burden on their environment by having to employ many additional workers late at night. Yet the licence fee, which we will turn to later no doubt, is sufficient only to cover the actual costs imposed on the council in operating that system.
So I think it would be good if we could—not perhaps in the particular way that the noble Baroness has described, but in some other manner—ensure that the council has the ability, where there are severe threats to the environment, to do something about it in its licensing policy. What I am afraid of, to be quite frank about the matter, is that it will not have that ability under the guidance to be issued.
As the noble Baroness is aware, I am really very upset about the way that the Bill is being handled. We will not know until the guidance is issued what powers the local authorities have to deal with these threats. We will have finished with it long before they come to award the licences and before they have to consider the policies we are talking about today. So, I am sorry, but I think that whatever we say today, the powers of the

617
local authorities are going to be so limited—and this is what they have expressed to us in their complaints—that we shall not be able to protect the environment, not just at the centre of London but in many of our provincial towns, which are now under grave threat.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I rise to support my noble friend on the Front Bench and also to allude to the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. In terms of the costs which Westminster expects, in addition to additional administration, inspection and enforcement costs of between £1.6 million and £1.2 million, it estimates that the additional cost of street cleansing to cope with 24-hour opening will be in the region of £1.2 million. Extra noise-abatement costs are estimated to be £500,000.
I put down these markers at this stage because the Government Front Bench will recall that there have been occasions in the past when Westminster has had money taken away from it in the context of people who come into Westminster by day. A large number of the people who come into Soho and the West End stress area during the course of the night are not Westminster residents.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I have listened carefully to the debate on the amendments which seek to alter the licensing objectives which lie at the heart of the Bill. The objectives are designed to ensure that everyone involved in the licensing regime is focused on the common goals that are essential to the well-being of our communities in relation to licensable activities. They are also to ensure that all regulations restricting the freedom of the industry are genuinely necessary and do not duplicate other regulatory regimes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made reference to issues in Clause 13 occurring late in the Bill. That officer is concerned with noise issues. The noble Baroness will recognise that the officers that are identified are concerned with a number of general issues which are not directly related to the licensable activities.
The four licensing objectives were developed after extensive and detailed consultations with all stakeholders and a lengthy review of the existing law conducted between 1998 and 1999. The result of that consultation is a clear focus on the prevention of disorder and disturbance, the assurance of public safety in places where people gather together for leisure purposes, and the protection of children from physical, moral and psychological harm. The effect of these amendments would be to extend those groups of objectives.
I turn to the noxious issue of what happens to the wrappings from fast-food outlets and so on. We all recognise entirely the validity of what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Avebury, about the extent of that nuisance. I also respect the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that there is a cost involved in clearing up this vast amount of litter.
618
It is difficult to suggest that the fast-food licensee is responsible for the litter cast away after the food has been consumed. First, the litter is frequently some distance away from the premises; secondly, the person committing the offence is the person who cast the litter. It is against them that action should and is taken in the best circumstances.
No doubt we need to tighten up our regimes in that regard. We know the obligations laid upon the police. But we are all concerned to improve the control of litter in our society. From time to time campaigns are run. I can remember a decade ago, in St James's Park, even the Prime Minister at that time led a campaign against litter. But it is unfair, within the framework of this Bill, to make the owner of the fast-food outlet responsible for the litter cast by people who have consumed his food. They are fully responsible for their own actions.
We should restrict the freedom of persons engaged in legitimate business only to the extent it is absolutely necessary in the wider community interest. Therefore we must be careful only to frame objectives that licensing can properly aim to achieve. These amendments would create new licensing objectives of protection of the environment and minimising or preventing the pollution of the environment.
Of course protection of the environment is an important issue. But it does not come within the scope of this Bill. The terms proposed would open the way for inappropriate and disproportionate conditions. They would overlap with other regimes in place which already impact on business. Environmental protection controls provide extensively for punitive action against businesses which transgress those rules. The intention behind the amendments is already provided for in a balanced way by the Bill as drafted. A range of expert bodies, including those authorities responsible for health and safety and environmental health, including the police and the fire authority, will have a say in all applications and the call for a review of existing licences.
I share the concerns expressed by Members of the Committee in this debate. We all recognise that what has been rightly identified is an issue to which we need to address our resources with care. However, the Bill is not the vehicle for environmental protection of that kind. I recognise that the noble Baroness feels that the amendment would enable us to clarify the Government's position. I hope I have succeeded sufficiently to enable her to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I do not seek in any way to prevent the Minister from sitting down. However, he explained that the fast-food outlet does not have a responsibility for litter and that that responsibility falls on the person who distributes the litter. Let me say, so that it is on the record, that in the days when I lived adjacent to Westminster Cathedral, McDonald's were impeccable in the way they cleared up the litter over the whole of the Westminster Cathedral piazza.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister fir his response. I wish to add to what my noble friend

619
Lord Brooke said in relation to the activities of McDonald's. As many of us are aware, they are not alone. A number of organisations in the industry go out of their way to try to minimise the impact within the locality of their various premises.
That said, we felt it worthwhile raising this issue for clarification. I shall read in Hansard what the Minister said in relation to the licensing objectives. I am still a little uncertain but I do not want to detain the Committee too long on the matter tonight. We were not seeking to alter the objectives; we sought to add to them. We felt that it was a matter of considerable concern. As I said in my opening statement about the amendments, this area commands the widest public support. We were particularly interested that the risk of pollution of the environment was not one of the objectives, although it is referred to, as the Minister and I said, in Clause 13(4)(d), which refers to,
"the local authority by which statutory functions are exercisable in any area in which the premises are situated in relation to minimising or preventing the risk of pollution of the environment or of harm to human health".
We feel that some of the references are somewhat thrown into the Bill. On the one hand, they are not objectives and, on the other hand, in a sense, they are. That is why I want to read carefully what the Minister said. It is an important issue, but I do not wish to detain the Committee further. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
"() the protection of public health"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 76, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 79.
The amendments explore the limits of what the Government think that licensing objectives should be. We have a later amendment, which, we hope, we will be able to debate separately, when we have explored more of the shape of the Bill as a whole in Committee. It suggests that we should have an annual report on alcohol and health that would enable us to monitor and control the effect of the changes in the law. For now, I want just to explore the principle.
The Government are quick on the draw when it comes to telling us what is good and bad for us. We cannot open a newspaper without getting a lecture on something or other. Whether it is driving, smoking, children's eating habits or fireworks, somewhere there will be a Minister lecturing us about it, a government leaflet preaching about it, a government regulation forbidding it or a government supporter itching to pass a law about it. It sometimes seems that, in this country, we cannot move for government health advice. The advice is not always clear: need I mention sex? It is not always consistent: need I mention cannabis? But it is there.
Then, we turn to the policy on licensing. That policy will set the framework for a generation for where and when people can drink. Where is health in the
620
equation? I ask the Minister to answer some simple, straight questions. What are the public health advantages of 24-hour drinking? Do the Government have a view? If so, where does it inform policy? If not, where were the Health Ministers while the policy was being framed?
The Bill concedes that alcohol can be harmful. It is implicit—though not stated—in the concerns set out in the clause about disorder, public safety and public nuisance. It is explicit elsewhere. In Clause 13(4)(d), it is recognised that one of the roles of the officer of a local authority responsible for licensed premises is the prevention of "harm to human health". If it is a legitimate role for a local authority officer to prevent harm to human health in watching over licensed premises, why is that dimension not recognised—and, by implication, not permitted to be recognised—in the licensing objectives? It would be helpful for our future debates if the Minister could explain that to the Committee and, in so doing, give some assessment of the harm to human health that the Bill envisages that local authority officers—but not licensing policy—will prevent. It is all the more puzzling, given the wording of subsection (2)(d), which refers to,
"the protection of children from harm".
We debated that with regard to Amendment No. 74, but does the harm that children may suffer include harm to health?
What is the Government's attitude to the consumption of alcohol in quantities, something that might be facilitated by 24-hour drinking? In what quantities and in what conditions could it be harmful? If it could be harmful, why do the objectives of licensing policy not include, even at the fringes of the policy, the prevention of harm? I hope that we will not see another government illogicality, combining the opening-up of unrestricted drinking hours with controls or bans on the advertising of drink. Do the Government believe that the wider availability of alcohol around the clock affects in any way the case for controlling advertising? I am not advocating such controls; I am simply inquiring into the Government's position. Imagine a situation where a street or area becomes, as some people fear may happen under the Bill, a place where all-night drinkers congregate around the clock. Some streets in London are in that category as a result of the Government's cannabis policy areas for drug use.
Is there no dimension here of risk or danger of harm to health? I am interested in the Government's response. Are they prepared to think further about those issues? I invite them to consider bringing into the Bill, in relation to licensing objectives, the same consideration for the prevention of harm to human health as appears elsewhere. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I believe that the noble Baroness started with an unfortunate metaphor. She referred to this Government being quick on the draw. It seems an unfortunate concept to suggest that seeking to improve aspects of public well-being should

621
be done at the point of a gun. I say that against the background of the previous two Opposition amendments that would have increased regulation and control, which we sought to resist. Therefore, if anyone has been pointing a gun in the past half hour, I would maintain that it is the mover of previous amendments. However, let that be.
I emphasise the obvious fact. The amendments seek to add to the four licensing objectives which I explained in response to earlier debate, the promotion of public health and the prevention of harm to human health. Public health is an important issue. I understand the reasoning behind the amendments. However, they are no more justified within the framework of this Bill than protection of the environment. The wider area of the protection of public health is not within the scope of the Bill.
Having said that, certain of the Bill's measures should have a positive effect on public health. Fixed closing times or permitted hours have been associated with hinge drinking as people try to consume large quantities of alcohol against the clock in an attempt to heat last orders.
If we want a reference where health has improved, we have only to look at the New Zealand and Australian experience—which I admit is not quite the Nordic example we were discussing earlier. However, the features of Australian and New Zealand culture are, for obvious reasons, more closely related to our own. The famous "six o'clock swill" occurred because pubs and bars closed at such a ridiculously early hour that people who had been hard at work all day had less than one hour in which to consume as much alcohol as possible before their time was up. The result was appalling levels of binge drinking and drunkenness generated by artificially early fixed closing times. The issues declined in salience once the licensing regime was relaxed.
The Bill will do away with artificially early fixed closing times. However, that is just one piece of the jigsaw of evidence. Following the last major liberalisation of licensing law in this country—all-day opening in 1988–89—alcohol consumption fell for several years running.
The Government recognise the motive behind the amendment. We share with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the fact that alcohol can do harm to health. That is why we have set up the national alcohol harm reduction strategy. The project has close links with my department, but the lead department on this strategy—the noble Baroness made reference to the question of where does the Department of Health fit—is the Department of Health.
I reiterate that the licensing objectives are designed to ensure that everyone involved in licensing concentrates on clearly focused and understandable common goals essential to the well-being of our communities and worked out in negotiations with all parties to the legislation. However, they must be realistic and must lead to terms, conditions and restrictions on licences which can be sensibly achieved by any licensee. That is why we no more believe that
622
this amendment fits within the framework of the Bill than we did its immediate predecessor, with which it has a close parallel.
I hope that the noble Baroness will once again feel that I have explained the Government's position sufficiently for her to be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Chan: Where within the licensing authority will there be an emphasis on public health? Apart from the issue of prolonged hours for drinking alcohol, other issues arise; for instance, the temptation to forget about cleaning the premises. Floors and toilets have to be cleaned and, more importantly, beer lines must be sterilised. There will be the danger of the licensee deciding to delay that cleaning because of his concern to please his clients who are there for longer periods.
There will also be prolonged exposure to a smoke-filled environment and I wonder whether that has been considered. Furthermore, members of staff must also work additional hours. Surely those issues must be highlighted within the Bill.
Lord Avebury: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chan, that those issues should be highlighted within the Bill. We are in danger of losing sight of the overwhelming tide of alcohol that is sweeping through the country. According to the latest figures, alcohol-related illness is costing the National Health Service £2.9 billion per annum.
The Minister is out of date when he ascribes the harm to binge drinking immediately before the standard closing time of eleven o'clock. I do not know where he has been for the past few years, but patterns of drinking have changed. Pubs may close at eleven o'clock, but other establishments continue until two, three or four in the morning.
I do not know whether the Minister saw the article in the Guardian last week announcing:
"New wave of sophisticated alcopops fuels teenage binge drinking",
or whether he read the article immediately below that stating:
"Out on the town in Romford where 16 year-olds have 10 bottles a night".
That describes drinking patterns. One young girl aged 16 said that she goes out to the pubs and that after they close she goes into clubs. There she consumes, as the headline says, 10 bottles or even more. Some people drink 15 bottles between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. That is not the kind of binge drinking with which we were familiar a few years ago when people swallowed large quantities of alcohol immediately before closing time.
That pattern has disappeared from the drinking life of this country. The increasing consumption of alcohol is already being fuelled by establishments which open late at night. The noble Lord and his Government are proposing to extend that culture all over the country and to allow any establishment to open for as many hours as it thinks it needs to sell more alcohol. That is the only point of the exercise; establishments would not stay open all night if they were not going to

623
increase their sales. As sales mount, more harm will be done to the nation's health. There is no argument whatever that the costs to this country in terms of accidents and ill health due to alcohol will increase according to the amount of alcohol that is drunk. In ignoring health issues we are setting off a time bomb. Alcohol-related harm is already ripping into our national life, causing immense harm particularly to young people.
I appeal to the noble Lord to read the document which was recently published by the Department of Health—a survey carried out by the National Centre for Social Research and the National Foundation for Educational Research, Drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in 2001. I think that it would benefit Ministers who are dealing with this Bill to look at that report. They always speak about joined-up government, but every time we ask about the harm that is caused by alcohol the Minister says that it has nothing to do with licensing. I do not accept that answer and I appeal to the Government to think again.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: It is not for me to come to the aid of the Government Front Bench, but there are two points which are worth making. The first is that the consumption of alcopops has declined quite radically since the Government introduced excise changes. Consumption has dropped by 18 per cent in the past 12 months. I am not saying that there is not a problem but that particular aspect has been tackled.
The second point is that market forces drive good licensees of pubs to have a neat, clean, well-organised place. They want the car park to look nice; they want the environment to look nice. If it does not look nice, the customers will not come again. I accept the points that are being made, but I think that we must also see that there is an economic rationale within this for publicans to ensure that their clientele are well behaved and that the pub is clean and well organised, because that will bring people back again. They are in a trade where they want people to return and to use the public house day after day, week after week.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I think that is true but, if you travel around the country as I do, visiting various towns on political errands of one kind or another, you will find that in almost every town there are two or three large pubs which are solid drinking places for young people, from about six o'clock on into the night. Those are the pubs which have to encourage people to stay on in order to drink more.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, is of course right in saying that they do their best to see that their car parks are tidy, that the place is not full of vomit and that it is reasonably well controlled. But these are places to which people become accustomed to going. They know that this is a place you go to on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday night in any provincial town, and you drink as much as you possibly can.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We have had a clear illustration of how easy it is to identify a well-known
624
issue with regard to public health, to bring in a whole range of arguments which are somewhat extraneous to this measure, and then to indicate that somehow this measure ought to be expanded to cover all of these aspects.
Let us take the most obvious things. I know the reputation of the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and I very much respect his contribution to issues of public health. But this is not the Bill in which we constrain the hours of work of the people who work in licensed premises. We have legislation which deals with hours of work. Employment legislation is a key feature of the Government's record, of which they are rightly proud. This measure, however, does not include the issue of working hours. Nor is there any question of a licence being granted or renewed to a licensee who is not capable of keeping his equipment clean enough to avoid straightforward damage to public health—which would soon become apparent, it would seem to me, if he were guilty of fouling the pipes to the extent suggested. Of course it is an important consideration, but only within the obvious general obligation of a licensee to provide a healthy beverage—that is, a non-poisonous beverage—to the consumer.
I regard the issue of alcopops as somewhat extraneous. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly identified the fact that there had been a significant rise in under-age drinking which needed to be addressed, and that alcopops formed a part of that cult. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, came to my rescue like a knight in shining armour—for which I am duly grateful—and I can merely testify to the accuracy of what the noble Lord said: that is, that these issues have been addressed. The Portman Group has established agreed packaging for alcopops and the Government have taken steps to encourage the development of a code of practice to help to control the position.
Nothing needs to be added to the Bill in terms of constraints on under-age drinking. We had that debate earlier in regard to identity cards. Of course, identity cards would not necessarily solve the problem of alcopops because other people could purchase them for under-age drinkers in all kinds of outlets. The problem must be tackled on the basis of the way in which these alcoholic beverages are presented to the public. Strenuous work has been carried out to ensure that some of the worst features of that problem have been brought under control to a degree.
I recognise that the amendment introduces the issue of public health. This is important in regard to alcohol because we know that excessive consumption of alcohol is dangerous to humankind. We also know that alcohol is one of the joys of the community. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may ask where I do my drinking; I would ask where he has been if he does not appreciate the fact that alcohol, drunk in restrained amounts in ideal circumstances, is one of the great joys of our society and civilization. What are we more proud of in Britain than the concept of the British pub?
Within that framework, part of the representations on this amendment appear to be fundamental Second Reading points on what is wrong with anything that

625
extends licensing hours. We have argued the case with great strength, both on Second Reading and when it has cropped up in these amendments, and on that basis I hope that we can move on and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It is right that these issues should be probed. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, came forward with additional thoughts in relation to whether or not the beer lines will be sterilised if pubs are on the go 24 hours a day. These are important issues where publicans are under pressure—notwithstanding what my noble friend Lord Hodgson said—and are bound to impact on the day-to-day workings of licensed premises. Indeed, they will become more apparent given the pressures involved in the prolonged hours of work that I suspect will impact on those with premises licences and individual personal licences as a result of the liberalising laws in the Bill.
It is important to reiterate that one of the reasons for probing this issue is that we on this side of the Committee do not seek to regulate, to clamp down, to minimise and control—far from it—but, as I said in opening the debate, we are somewhat intrigued by the fact that the Government lecture us on many fronts in relation to what is good for us and for our health. Even in a recent report on the future of sport, which 'was leaked from 10 Downing Street, it seems that sport is no longer about having fun, team playing, enjoying yourself; it is about health. We do not disagree with that. However, we are saying that the entire tenet, the drive, of the Government at the moment seems to be about how we look after ourselves and our health. That is not a bad idea, but it seems that we should not be debating the matter now.
I make no apology for raising this important issue. It is also referred to in Clause 13 of the Bill. We believe that if matters of public health and the protection of the environment were on the face of the Bill, the licensing objectives would benefit the local authorities that will have to work with the Bill, when enacted.
On that basis, we have had a good debate and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 77 to 80 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): Before calling Amendment No. 81, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 82 to 89 inclusive due to preemption.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84.
These amendments relate to the duty imposed by Clause 4(3) on a licensing authority to "have regard to" its own licensing statement and the Secretary of
626
State's guidance when carrying out its functions. Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 84 are probing amendments that would delete the current wording of the Bill. Amendment No. 82 would replace the words "have regard to" with "take into account".
I have tabled these amendments to probe the exact nature of the duties that will be imposed on local authorities under Clause 4. The Committee will have noticed that, although the term "have regard to" is used in subsection (3) in relation to following the licensing statement and the Secretary of State's guidance, subsection (1) uses the term "with a view to promoting". It would have been open to the Government to say in subsection (1), "A licensing authority must have regard to the licensing objectives when carrying out its functions under this Act", rat her than using the term "with a view to promoting" in the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will be able to explain to the Committee why the Government have chosen to use what in my submission is the slightly weaker wording, imposing a less onerous duty, of "with a view to promoting" in subsection (1), which deals with the statutory licensing objectives, but have chosen the wording "have regard to" in the context of subsection (3), which deals with a duty to follow the licensing statement and the Secretary of State's guidance.
I therefore take it from the wording of the Bill that if in the judgment of a licensing authority either the licensing statement or the national guidance conflict with the licensing objectives in subsection (2), it will have to apply the statement and the guidance over the objectives, given the difference between the terms "with a view to promoting" and "having regard to". Perhaps the Minister will comment on that when she comes to the Dispatch Box, and also on what a licensing authority will have to do if it considers that its own licensing statement and the Secretary of State's national guidance conflict. Which will be followed?
The Committee will recall that during the final stages of the passage of the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Bill in the previous Session your Lordships' House agreed, after a Division, to an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns. That amendment would have placed a duty on the Secretary of State—that is, the Home Secretary—to "have regard to" the needs of asylum seekers when choosing sites for new accommodation centres.
Members of the Committee—not least my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who took a great interest in the provisions of that Bill—will also recall that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on consideration of Commons amendments and reasons, said that the wording of that amendment,
"would open up an increased probability of frequent judicial review".—[Official Report, 6/11/02; col.782]
He said that it would open us up to delay and judicial review. I therefore invite the Minister to comment on the use of the words "have regard to" in Clause 4(3).
I ought to say that there are many instances in legislation of duties being imposed on public authorities to "have regard to" certain matters when making decisions. But I thought that in the light of the recent comments by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, from the Government Front Bench I should give the noble Baroness an opportunity to tell the Committee something of the Government's thinking on the drafting of Clause 4 and the potential for judicial review of licensing authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: This is an important set of amendments, relating as it does to Clause 177 and bringing the clause into play in terms of the guidance—which could of greater or lesser importance depending on what is included. The framework guidance which has been made available to us runs to 11 pages and 55 paragraphs. Within that there is either an opportunity for extreme centralisation or alternatively the emergence of local democracy and decentralisation depending on what emphasis is placed on the document.
The document contains a great deal that is unclear. It uses words such as "proportionality"—the pages are not numbered—in connection with premises licences. I am not quite sure what "proportionality" is in relation to a premises licence. Other aspects of the premises licence raise questions. For example, there is a reference to large venues of 1,500 people. It is not clear to me whether 1,500 is a number that will be set in stone for ever or whether it is capable of being altered.
Many personal licence holders operating under a premises licence granted under the terms of the Bill—if capacity is applied to their public houses, and if different levels of capacity are applied to different bars—could have extreme difficulty in managing the flow of people between the different parts of the licensed premises.
My noble friend has raised an important point as to exactly where and how the guidance can be fitted in. It is already lengthy and capable of being extremely prohibitive to local conditions, or alternatively very empowering in terms of local democracy. We need to spend some time considering how this will operate and whether it is not actually the guts of the Bill by proxy in Clause 177.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I strongly support what my noble friend has just said and the remarks of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I find a particular sympathy with Amendment No. 83. It would be helpful if in replying to this brief debate the Minister could tell us why precisely this guidance from the Secretary of State is thought to be necessary. Surely the whole essence of having licensing authorities is that they know the local conditions best. It is perfectly understandable if in one area late-night activity is not thought to be a problem whereas in another it can be very objectionable indeed. If licensing authorities are to have a purpose, surely that kind of decision must be left to them.
628
What worries me about this is that once again it seems to be a case of "the Minister in Whitehall knows best" and, if necessary, he is going to promulgate and licensing authorities throughout the country are going to have to listen.
Perhaps I may quote a somewhat similar example from my experience as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, an interest that I have declared frequently in this Chamber. As many will know, the Government are anxious for the South Downs to be turned into a national park. One of the reasons why there is considerable hesitancy about this is the feeling that in the end the Minister will decide exactly how a national park is to be run, he will appoint most of the members and so forth, rather than trust in the local authorities, the local people who know the conditions, to make the judgments.
Particularly in the case of licensing and the freeing up of the licensing laws—of which I approve—it is worrying if the licensing authorities feel, with reason, that there may be an edict from the centre that does not take account of local conditions. My noble friend on the Front Bench said that Amendment No. 83 was a probing one. It is jolly specific. I wish to know why it is thought necessary that the Secretary of State can administer the guidance at all. Could that not be seen as a threat to the ability of local licensing authorities to make their own difficult decisions about what is appropriate in their own areas?
9.30 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: This grouping is an a la carte menu of amendments directed, broadly speaking, to the same point and purpose. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry opted for Amendment No. 83. I opt for Amendment No. 84, which was tabled jointly by the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. Having heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I thought that he, too, might be supporting Amendment No. 84. I may have misunderstood his speech.
Amendment No. 84 proposes the deletion of Clause 4(3)(b). If, as the Bill implies at present, a licensing authority must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in the exercise of all its licensing functions, local accountability will be eroded to an unacceptable extent. In addition, the legislation would leave unclear the respective roles of the licensing authority's statement of licensing policy, on the one hand, and the Secretary of State's guidance, on the other.
Assuming that Clause 177 stands part of the Bill, licensing authorities will be required to have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance when formulating policy. But, having done so, it seems to me that the statement of licensing policy should guide the determination of licensing applications. If a local authority did not have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance, it could be subject to judicial review in the manner to which my noble friend Lady Buscombe referred. That course of action, if it were followed, would contribute to the Bill's aim of ensuring local democratic decision-making in determining licence applications.

629
The test of the proposition is that, alternatively, if the local authority's licensing policy is at variance with the Secretary of State's guidance or vice versa, the magistrates at appeal level will have to determine both the policy and the facts of the individual case. That cannot he right if the principle of democratic accountability is, in any genuine sense, to be maintained as, I assume, the Government still intend—if I may give them the benefit of the doubt.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My noble friend is absolutely right. I was incorrect in saying that I supported Amendment No. 83. I was speaking to Amendment No. 84.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Rarely do I have the effect of changing the speech of any of my colleagues on these Benches. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for telling me that I did on this occasion.
Lord Redesdale: I shall speak briefly. I thought that Amendment No. 84, to which my name is attached, would be grouped with the next set of amendments. I will therefore speak to it with the next group.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I hope very much that the Government will consider these amendments carefully, and that they provide the type of safeguards discussed in the context of amendments to previous legislation. I hope that they will be pursued properly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall try to set out the hierarchy of responsibilities in Clauses 4, 5 and 177, on which there is confusion—no doubt, that is the Government's fault, as is everything else. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, queried the phrase in Clause 4, "with a view to promoting". Clause 4 states:
"A licensing authority must carry out its functions … with a view to promoting the licensing objectives".
That means that it has no choice. It is not a weak provision; it is a strong requirement. We have now passed the four licensing objectives. The committee has approved them as the bedrock on which the activities of licensing authorities will be based.
Clause 5 relates to the statement of licensing policy, which is enormously important. However, it is produced by the individual licensing authority. It sets out over a three-year period—the detail of which we shall come to shortly—the way in which the licensing authority interprets the four licensing objectives in the context of its own area. It has to do so with a degree of transparency that is set out in detail in the clause. It also has to consult; it has to publish; it has to argue; and it has to be prepared to listen to representations. Generally speaking this is, if you like, the local responsibility element of the way of which licensing policy is delivered.
Finally, there is Clause 177, which deals with guidance. Everyone has read the Framework for Guidance. I should remind the Committee that guidance is not legislation; it is a document produced by the Secretary of State that is designed to secure that
630
no unnecessary conflicts exist between the licensing policies set out by different licensing authorities. It also sets out the kind of issues that licensing authorities must consider when they are producing such a policy. The phrase for that is quite deliberately "have regard to"; in other words, when we are talking about guidance, which is neither legislation nor an instruction, the words "have regard to" are appropriate because the authority retains an ultimate discretion to depart from the guidance.
If an authority departs from the guidance, it has a public duty to show that it has had regard to the guidance—that is to say, that it has taken it seriously and used it in the process of formulating its objectives. Those are the three levels, as it were, through which we arrive at the basis upon which licensing authorities take individual decisions.
We should now look at the amendments before the Committee. They work in two opposite directions, which is perhaps a feature of the grouping rather than anything else. Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 would remove the obligation for a licensing authority to "have regard to" its own licensing statement, which has been determined and published under Clause 5. Amendment No. 84 would remove the obligation on a licensing authority to have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State; in other words, if you take the two provisions together as you would with Amendment No. 81, or if you take them separately as you would with Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, the licensing authority is left in limbo. A licensing authority would not have to pay any attention to its own statement, and it would not have to pay any attention to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
However, Amendment No. 82 works in completely the opposite direction. It says that a licensing authority should "take into account" both provisions, rather than "have regard to" them. The Bill provides flexibility. However, the requirement to "take into account" would place a stronger obligation on licensing authorities to take on board all the relevant sections of the guidance and of licensing policies, and would leave them open to challenge if they failed to do so. The requirement to "have regard to" more fully reflects the fact that there will be certain circumstances in which licensing authorities will have reason to depart from the guidance.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: As the Minister was making his response to this grouping, I turned to Clause 177 of the Bill to look at the nature of the Secretary of State's guidance, which 'will be,
"guidance to licensing authorities on the discharge of their functions under this Act".
Is the Minister saying that they would not be subject to judicial review if they went ahead and paid no attention to Clause 177 even though the words "have regard to" had been removed from the Bill by Amendment No. 84? If he is not saying that, is he not

631
putting the local authority in the position that it has to keep altering its licensing policy in the light of any future guidance?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On its own, Amendment No. 84 removes the obligation on the licensing authority to "have regard to" any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. In other words, by agreeing to the amendment, one is doing as good as voting against Clause 177 stand part. There is no point in having guidance if no one has an obligation to have regard to it. Is that the question I was asked?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: That is the question I was asking. However, on the Minister's interpretation, which I acknowledge from the text, would he then oblige the local authority to keep changing its licensing policy in the light of any new guidance? I am saying that the local authority could have regard to Clause 177 when it set out its licensing policy in the first instance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The local authority does not have to change it every single time; it just has to show that it has had regard to it. The guidance may change and the licensing authority may say, "Yes, we thought about that, but it does not apply to us and we are not going to make any change to our statement under Clause 5".
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: The issue of large capacity venues has caused some concern. Could a licensing authority say, "We have had regard to the guidance, but we don't want 1,500 as the limit in our area; we want 500". Could it do that, or must it be 1,500 or above? It is the smaller capacity issues that will be very difficult to enforce.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As long as they have thought about it, and as long as they have read the guidance and paid attention to it, yes, of course, they could change the 1,500—they could change it to 500, or they could change it to 5,000 if they wanted to. My noble friend Lady Blackstone will speak more about the guidance in speaking to the next group, so I shall not go into it in detail. However, the framework which Members of the Committee have seen is not the guidance itself; the framework was provided to inform debate on Clause 177. The guidance will take account of the debates in this House as well as all the other representations made on it. The obligation on the local authority is to "have regard to" the guidance. If it reads the guidance very carefully, thinks about it and says, "1,500 is not the appropriate number for us", it is within its powers to do so.
It is a hierarchy of obligations. The licensing objectives, in Clause 4, are common for all local authorities and are obligatory on all local authorities. The statement of licensing policy, in Clause 5, is designed to take account of local circumstances and is produced by licensing authorities themselves. The guidance in Clause 177 is designed to provide help for
632
local authorities in producing consistency between licensing authorities and to give guidance on what should be in licensing policies. Those are the three elements. All of these amendments would cause damage to the relationship between those elements.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: The noble Lord is understandably trying to play down the importance of guidance. Nevertheless, what real reason does he have to do that? Earlier, I quoted the example of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty; PPGs—planning policy guidance—are issued to local authorities about their planning decisions in that regard. If they do not follow that guidance, it is very likely that an inspector and an inquiry would follow, and that very serious questions would be asked about why the PPG issued by the Environment Secretary had not been followed.
Does not that go to the heart of the problem? What is guidance? It is just a tilt in the right direction and if the licensing authority does not want to follow it, so be it. But certainly as regards planning guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment, that is not the case. Local planning committees are certainly expected to follow that planning guidance.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not trying to play down the matter. I am simply saying that, having had regard to the guidance—in other words, having considered it properly—the licensing authority can reach a different conclusion which is appropriate to its circumstances. That recognises the differences between, for example, a town centre and a rural area.
I do not deny or confirm anything that the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, says about planning guidance. I do not think that we should draw any conclusions from guidance in other legislation. I refer to what will happen in the circumstances we are discussing. There is a balance here of common objectives agreed by everyone and understood by licence applicants, local residents, the police and local authorities together with a degree of local autonomy providing for special circumstances whether in Sutton town centre or Muddlecombe-under-Slosh. That is provided for in Clause 5. There is also the guiding hand of the Secretary of State in the sense that I have described it. That seems to me a rational way of dealing with devolution and special circumstances but with a necessary core of consistency.
Lord Avebury: I hope that the Minister can explain a matter to me. He referred to paragraph 41 of the framework guidance which refers to the situation in premises which have a capacity exceeding 1,500. In designing their policies how can local authorities ever specify what is to be done in these larger premises if no one can ever acquire the experience that is necessary to manage them? If they stick rigidly to the recommendation in paragraph 41, the licence would have to lay down that the individual responsible for day-to-day management must have had a certain level of experience of controlling similar venues. So how

633
does anyone acquire the experience that enables him to manage such large premises when he cannot be appointed to them even provisionally within the terms of the advice that the Secretary of State will lay down?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall not embark on a detailed defence of the framework guidance. As I said, the matter of how guidance and draft guidance will be made available will be explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when she discusses the next group of amendments. Of course, questions remain with regard to paragraph 41 of the guidance. There are parts that legislation cannot reach. However, guidance can be changed to suit changing circumstances. If we sought to legislate in either primary or secondary legislation to cover all the eventualities that might arise in negotiations between the licensing authority and applicants, we would be here until midnight for many months. We shall be here until close to that time as it is. We are in danger of going much too far.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. We are in danger of being here rather a long time as we are desperately seeking clarity. On the one hand, I am extremely grateful to the Minister because my question has been answered. My question was: what w i11 a licensing authority do when it has to consider its own licensing statement and national guidance issued by the Secretary of State and when there is conflict? The Minister has made it clear that the local authority will retain the ultimate authority to depart from the guidance. In turn, I question why that is not clearly stated in the Bill. As I said in my opening remarks, it is unclear who takes precedence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is exactly what "have regard to" means; that is what it means in legislation, and has done for many years. I can have a learned letter written to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to give her precedents. Her interpretation is exactly right, and that is why we use the words "have regard to" rather than "take account of".
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister, but he may remember that I referred to something that his noble friend Lord Filkin said. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, suggested in relation to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill that the wording "having regard to" would,
"open up an increased probability of frequent judicial review".—]Official Report, 6/11/02; col. 782.]
He also said that it would cause delay.
I believe that we are right to table these probing amendments. When developing our thoughts and arguments in relation to the amendments, we were of the view that "have regard to" carries more instruction than "take into account". The Minister sees it the other way, and I am grateful for his clarity.
The provision will, however, create a sense of inconsistency at local level. As I know from my own experience as a district councillor on a planning committee, like it or not the committee was very much
634
subject to the instructions of the planning guidance issued by the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry made a similar point. Officials and elected members of local government will be given much more of a free hand with this Bill. but they will have to stick to what is customary at local level in following national guidance.
Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. However, I ask him to think carefully about the possibility of introducing an amendment on Report to make it clear in the Bill that the ultimate authority will remain with the local authority to depart from the guidance. In that way, people will know exactly where they are and will not have to go fishing in Hansard for the answers. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 3, line 16, leave out "guidance" and insert "regulations"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 91 and the Question whether Clause 177 shall stand part of the Bill.
I am concerned with the national guidance as detailed in Clause 177. In the Explanatory Notes, the guidance gets a mere two sentences of explanation. We are told that:
"The Bill provides that licensing authorities must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in formulating their framework policy documents and in discharging their other functions under the Bill".
The Bill seeks to streamline the current variety of licences under one licensing system. The task is large and the attempt is admirable. I concede the need for some of the detail of the functions of licensing committees to be dealt with in secondary legislation. We have limited time on the Floor of your Lordships' House and in the other place, which prevents us from having a debate on every function, definition and specification. However, a glance at the framework guidance—which was issued after much delay—has left many in this place, and many in local authorities, the police and industry, fearful of the Government's motives. The day-to-day functioning of the licensing committees is apparently to be left to the whim of the Secretary of State, subject to revision at whatever time he or she may think necessary. I doubt whether I am alone—I am sure that I am not—in questioning the democratic nature of a system in which such important matters are not only not in the Bill but not even subject to delegated legislation. That point has been made throughout our debate this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We find ourselves in a position in which we are trying to debate and scrutinise legislation that provides barely half of the picture.
The framework for guidance was issued, but rather than alleviating my fears, it has confirmed them. Guidance will be provided on almost every aspect of the Bill—to recommend, confirm, underline and

635
emphasise. It sounds more like dictation from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport rather than flexibility and liberalisation.
Amendment No. 85 is designed to probe that grey area. Subsection (3) stipulates that the licensing authority should,
"have regard to … its licensing statement … and … any guidance".
There may be instances in which the two are at odds. We know now from the Minister which will take precedence, and we are grateful for that clarity. However, we on this side of the Chamber feel that the matters that we have been led to believe will be dealt with in the guidance should rather be handed over to delegated legislation, which may be discussed in the form of statutory instruments. We believe that that would result in a sensible compromise between demanding that much more is in the Bill and the other situation with which we are now presented, by which so much of what I called at Second Reading the nuts and bolts of the legislation is left to guidance, which can be changed at any time without referral to interested parties—the Government like to refer to them these days as stakeholders.
Such regulations would be subject to scrutiny by your Lordships' House and would not be able to be revised without approval of this House and the other place. It is imperative that such an alteration is made. For those reasons, I express my intention to oppose the Question whether Clause 177 stand part of the Bill. I propose our Amendment No. 91 as a viable alternative.
The Government have promised the publication of the guidance by the spring, which may be as late as May. We have recently been told that it will be published in the new year. Which part of the new year? We fear that it will appear when the Bill has left your Lordships' House and passed to the other place. That simply is not good enough.
Although the hour is late, I could spend an enormous length of time on this amendment, and I know that other Members of the Committee want to contribute to this debate. However, the guidance notes do not deal with many issues. Our postbags are full of letters from interested parties concerned about the Bill's details. We strongly believe that much more could be in the Bill.
A classic example is that of off-trade, which seeks clarity about whether all or part of a premises can remain open at the same time in future. One part of the guidance notes says that that is the case; but what if the guidance notes change? A supermarket may find itself able in the first instance to have its alcohol section open 24 hours a day in future, along with the rest of the supermarket, but three years down the road that may change. That leaves an enormous amount of uncertainty. Is that fair on the industry, on local authorities and on all interested parties, which really means all of us?
This is an important debate and we hope that the Minister will take it seriously. Many issues deserve more attention and should be dealt with in the Bill. If
636
not, they deserve to be dealt with through delegated legislation, which affords all of us the opportunity to scrutinise the workings of the legislation. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: The purpose of putting my name to Amendment No. 84 was to pave the way for Amendment No. 91, which we support wholeheartedly. This seems to be another occasion on which the Government have been given time to clarify the basis under which a Bill will operate as set out in the framework; but that guidance turns up extremely late. Indeed, we are given an unspecified time of the New Year or the spring when the actual document will be in front of us. That does not seem acceptable.
The framework's introductory paragraph states:
"The framework is provided to enable and enhance Parliamentary scrutiny and debate in connection with the Bill".
That may well be the case because it outlines certain aspects that will be in the guidance. But the detail is completely lacking with regard to how those will work in practice. Although the framework is a fairly long document, that lack of detail is almost unacceptable considering that we are discussing the broad skeleton of the Bill and that all the flesh is to be provided by the guidance, which is not with us.
Given that that is the case, we have resorted to using a sledgehammer on the nut of this amendment. To continue that analogy, it is a nut that we are quite prepared to smash open because without it we will be in breach of our very purpose of scrutinising the Bill. We are putting Bills before Parliament about which we have very little understanding of how they will work in practice.
The Minister will say that all the aspects that are in the framework document are going to be fleshed out to everyone's satisfaction. However, the difference between the White Paper and the Bill is quite substantial. What is being proposed as being in the guidance document and what is actually in it could be quite dramatically different.
Therefore, we support the amendment. I very much hope that the Minister can give not just an indication of when the guidance document will be published, but an actual date. If she cannot do so, I think that we shall have to return to this amendment. I should be surprised if we do not push the amendment at a later stage of the Bill because it goes to our fundamental concern that we will be allowing a Bill to pass through Parliament which we have not scrutinised properly.
Lord Cobbold: I speak in respect of Clause 177 on guidance. I have read the Framework for Guidance—I am not sure whether it was the right one—to be issued under this clause. I had hoped for clarification on an issue which has not so far been raised in the debate, but unfortunately I have been disappointed.
The whole focus of the Bill and of the debate so far has been the question of transferring responsibility for the licensing of pubs and clubs from magistrates to local authorities and on the implications of the 24-hour opening of pubs and clubs.

637
My concern is that neither the Bill nor the Framework fir Guidance deal adequately with the granting of entertainment and music and dancing licences. These licences are currently governed by Section 1 and Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. This section and schedule are to be specifically repealed under Schedule 7—page 150—of the Bill.
I declare an interest in that I am personally involved in the ownership and management of Knebworth Park in Hertfordshire. We have a music and dancing licence from the local authority for up to 15,000 people. This licence is renewable annually and covers a variety of open-air events and entertainment that take place in the park throughout the year. On occasions, we also play host to very large open-air rock concerts. Our licence capacity for those events is 125,000. In those cases we apply to the local authority for an extension of the licence to cover the specific event or events.
We work very closely with the licensing authority on such events, usually for many months in advance. I have discussed the Bill with our licensing officer. Neither of us can see how these situations would be covered by the Bill as it stands. I may say in passing that our local licensing authority does not foresee enormous problems in taking on the licensing of pubs and clubs.
I presume that our annual music and dancing licence will become a premises licence. But as the Bill stands, it is clear that one-off, large, open-air concerts would not be covered by the provisions for "permitted temporary activities" in Part 5 of the Bill, which are restricted to the arbitrary maximum of 500 people.
I tabled one or two clarifying amendments for the later stages of our debate. At this stage I merely wish to point out the absence of guidance other than a helpful letter I received from the Minister. I suggest to the Government that they need to put the situation right and perhaps to reconsider incorporating the relevant sections of the 1982 Act into the Bill, in particular Schedule 1, paragraphs 3 and 4.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: Amendment No. 91 and Clause 3 are key here. The word "safeguard" comes to mind. There is great concern in the Committee about the nature of this legislation. I hope that these amendments are given careful consideration.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have sympathy for my noble friend in bringing forward these amendments given where we are at this stage of the Bill and at this hour of the night. I do not intend to sound patronising, but the Government redeemed themselves considerably in the Minister's response to the last grouping.
Given that we are not making rapid progress on the Bill, I ask myself why the Government are so consistently in trouble on it. I have taken the egotistical liberty of going back to the National Lottery Bill, a measure not dissimilar in terms of breaking new ground and being pressed on us in part
638
by experience elsewhere. Once the Albanians—the only other country in Europe who did not have a lottery—decided to have one, we felt that we should really have one ourselves.
The Government have shown great stamina in pursuing this issue since 1998. But they have been a little infirm of purpose in not ploughing an absolutely straight furrow—I do not use the word "straight" in any sense implying intellectual dishonesty—over those four years. Thus they left the total constituency, everybody involved—the industry and the local authorities—in some doubt as to their ultimate intention.
On the National Lottery Bill we sought to he utterly transparent. I was not present for Second Reading. I know the Minister had a problem with her voice. Perhaps because of that she was not interrupted. When I moved the Second Reading of the National Lottery Bill in the other place, I spoke for one hour and gave way every other minute. We did so deliberately to show that we had absolutely nothing to hide. I do not blame the Government. I simply say that the difficulties we are experiencing are partly attributable to suspicions about some aspects of the Bill, A considerable element of resolution therefore exists on this side of the House to get at what the Government's real intentions are.
To revert to the lottery, the consequence of the manner in which we played it was that the guidance to the lottery distributors had regard to exactly the same principle to which the noble Lord referred a moment ago. We did not have any difficulty at all. I know the Government may be troubled about the length of time it is taking us, but there is a desire to get this Bill right. If we do not get it right, we are sleep-walking into trouble.
Baroness Blackstone: Of course, I take the issues raised in this short debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and others, seriously. The noble Baroness asked me to do so, and I do. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that I have absolutely nothing to hide. It is in the interests of neither the Government nor this Committee to try to hide things. Far from it.
Clause 177 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to issue and revise guidance to licensing authorities on the discharge of their functions under the Bill. Clause 4 requires licensing authorities to have regard to any such guidance in carrying out their licensing functions, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey spelt out several times with regard to the previous group of amendments.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 91 are intended to replace the guidance that the Secretary of State may issue under the Bill with regulations. The regulations could be issued or renewed only with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State would have to come to Parliament every three years to renew the regulations. The guidance that the Bill provides for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to issue will be

639
developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including representatives of local authorities and the licensed trades. It is intended to promote best practice, to aid licensing authorities in making licensing decisions and to help business. It will, therefore, help to ensure a degree of consistency, where that is needed, throughout England and Wales. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said clearly, it is intended to be flexible, helpful and, importantly, responsive.
There are two issues. One is whether the guidance should be subject to scrutiny by Parliament. I have certainly noted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that a mechanism should be made available for guidance to be debated by each House. Of course, I take that recommendation seriously and will consider how we ought to proceed.
We must consider what scrutiny is appropriate, but I doubt that the full panoply of secondary legislation renewable every three years is the most useful way to proceed. For a start, it would make for an extremely inflexible system. In the light of the licensing authorities' experience of the new regime, it may be necessary to revise the guidance. That happens from time to time, when governments provide guidance for local authorities and others. The revisions might be minor, but they might need to be made quite frequently.
The power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the licensing authorities is designed to provide those authorities with an accessible and readily usable best practice guide. It will inform them of the types of matters that the Secretary of State considers likely to need to be taken into account as they reach their decisions and exercise their licensing functions generally. It is not intended to set out prescriptive rules that must be adhered to in all cases by all authorities, when they take decisions and exercise their general functions. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not now in his place, but I think that that is what he was referring to, when he spoke on the previous group of the undesirability of having such rigidity. My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey then explained that the guidance would not be rigid but flexible.
Regulations would be rigid, and that would be inappropriate, as the system must be responsive to local conditions and needs, which will differ from authority to authority and application to application. It is not an area for prescription of the degree of detail and scope of application. That would be the case if the guidance were replaced by regulations, as the amendment would provide. I must tease the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, as she teased the Government for being too prescriptive. The noble Baroness is now asking, in this group of amendments, that the Government should be more prescriptive. She is asking for regulations, instead of guidance.
Regulations would be inappropriate, if we are to achieve our intentions for the guidance. Where we have seen the need for detailed rules to be consistently
640
applied by all authorities, we have provided for those to be set out in regulations, by giving the Secretary of State a power. There are regulations attached to the Bill. However, we do not believe that guidance can be uniformly applied for all authorities for all purposes. It is right that assistance should be given, but authorities should not be compelled into abiding by a rigid framework, where recommendations for best practice and expectations cannot be justified, due to local considerations in the promotion of the licensing objectives, in the exercise of their functions.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that approaching guidance through regulations would not be appropriate. We must think of a way that would give a genuine opportunity for scrutiny but, at the same time, allowed the Government and the licensing authorities sufficient room for manoeuvre to adapt to emerging experience and changing conditions.
The other issue is certainty about what the guidance will contain. Of course, I understand that there is anxiety about that. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the guidance which the Secretary of State would issue were the Bill to become law. There would be advantages as we consider aspects of the Bill if that guidance were already available in full. I appreciate that.
For that reason, we have already provided Parliament with a framework document which makes clear what the guidance will contain and its range-although, admittedly, not all the detail. We are prepared to address this concern and to enable scrutiny if the framework has not fully met the point for some noble Lords.
There are two reasons why the guidance itself is not yet available. First, as the framework makes clear, a lot of it is technical material that requires detailed preparation. Secondly, some of it raises important issues on which it is vital for us to consult stakeholders. I understand the wish to see the guidance in its full form. However, it is equally true that we would have been accused of being rather presumptuous if before today we had completed the technical work and consulted stakeholders on guidance for a Bill that had only just received its Second Reading.
The work is in hand. Meetings are already taking place with the wide range of interests and government departments concerned. A tight schedule of consideration has been planned for January.
Today I am unable to undertake to produce guidance of this complexity in a couple of weeks. Indeed, I cannot commit Ministers in other departments which are involved to consider the guidance in a few days and set aside the usual conventions of collective agreement. However, given the strength of views on this point, I am willing to undertake to examine what can be done, while respecting all the points that I have made, and to examine whether an early draft can be exposed for consideration by noble Lords before the Bill completes its stages in this House.

641
Clause 177 provides that the Secretary of State may issue and revise guidance to licensing authorities on the discharge of their functions under the Bill. Subsection (2) provides that the Secretary of State must arrange for guidance issued or revised to be published in such a manner as he considers appropriate. The guidance issued under this clause will be provided for licensing authorities, but, by providing that it must be publicised, it would be widely available to the police, operators of licensed premises, their legal advisers and the general public. It will be a key mechanism for ensuring consistent application of a licensing regime across England and Wales and for promoting fairness and proportionality. Licensing authorities will be required by the provisions of Clause 4 to have regard to this guidance.
Perhaps I may briefly turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. A single premises licence can cover all the activities to which the noble Lord refers and it would last for the life of the business involved. Equally, a temporary premises licence can be obtained under Part 3. That licence could be time limited and cover any number of people. However, I look forward to listening to the amendments that he put forward when we reach that stage of the Bill.
With the assurances that I have given, will the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment and agree that Clause 177 stands part of the Bill?
Lord Norton of Louth: The Minister has made clear that in drawing up the guidance the Secretary of State will consult widely and, indeed, is doing so. Given that, is there any reason why the requirement to consult widely should not itself be incorporated in Clause 177?
Baroness Blackstone: I have already made it clear that this consultation is taking place. I would have thought that that is now on the record and am not clear why we need to amend Clause 177. However, if the noble Lord wants to table an amendment, we can, of course, consider it.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response and I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this relatively brief debate, given its importance. It is connected with the hour and also the fact that throughout Second Reading and in Committee noble Lords have made clear their deep concerns about Clause 177. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting those concerns and responding accordingly.
We are grateful that in the light of what we have said the Minister seeks to find genuine opportunities for scrutiny. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee has recommended that a mechanism be put in place for debate in both Houses. I am also grateful to the Minister for saying that we might see an early draft of the guidance in January. I thought that we already had one in the framework. Noble Lords on the Bench opposite are shaking their heads, so perhaps we can look forward to something new and different in 2003.
642
As my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville said, we shall sleepwalk into trouble if we do not continue to press our concerns with regard to the need for more clarity in the Bill. The Minister expressed concern that if our Amendment No. 91 were accepted the Secretary of State would have to come to Parliament every three years. That is a good idea—I believe that Secretaries of State should come to Parliament more often. It is typical of this Government, who prefer to treat Parliament as something of an irritant.
There are regulations in other parts of the Bill. I do not mind that the Minister attempts to tease me. I am not teased, because we seek to have more clarity. We believe that certain issues go to the heart of the legislation and that it would be sensible for them to be subject to regulation, which could be properly debated and amended by this House and another place on a three-yearly basis. That is entirely flexible and meets many of the concerns that Members of the Committee have raised previously and today.
I shall not detain the Committee longer, except to say that detailed preparation is of course required in relation to the drafting of the Bill and the guidance notes. However, it has been two and a half years since the publication of the White Paper and I am afraid that we are rightly becoming somewhat impatient on behalf of all interested parties to the Bill. We wait with bated breath to see the new guidance in draft form in January and to hear—
Baroness Blackstone: I would not want the noble Baroness to be misled. I said that there is a programme of work in January but I did not specify the precise time when we would be able to bring the draft guidance forward. I said that we would be able to do so at some point during the various stages of the Bill in this House.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for clarifying that point. Perhaps I may be so bold as to indicate that I speak with the collective voice of the Chamber when I say that we shall not be content for the Bill to leave this House unless we have had sight of and an opportunity to debate the guidance. We are grateful that so much preparation is taking place and we hope to have the opportunity to review it before it leaves this Chamber.
There will be another opportunity for another place to scrutinise it, but let us respond to what the Select Committee has recommended and what noble Lords have requested; that is, a genuine opportunity for scrutiny. We would like to see that in this House and we therefore wait to see what the Minister will bring forward in terms of opportunity for scrutiny. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [H.L.]
(First Day)
Tuesday, 17th December 2002.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordloff): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Target years]:
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1. line 14, at end insert—
"(1A) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the maximum amount of weight of end of life electrical and electronic equipment and end of life vehicles to be sent to landfills from each of—

(a) the United Kingdom,

(b) England,

(c) Scotland,

(d) Wales, and

(e) Northern Ireland."

The noble Lord said: I apologise if my voice disappears at any stage during the proceedings but I have been fighting off the flu or a cold for the best part of a fortnight, and no doubt I shall succumb finally when Christmas arrives. Meanwhile we have the interest of the Committee stage of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill.
Amendment No. 1 has been tabled to ask the Government certain fundamental questions. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply. The amendment would put on the face of the Bill other
GC 2
aspects of various regulations and directives involved with waste and waste disposal, in addition to the provisions relating to the Landfill Directive which make up Part 1 of the Bill as it stands. In particular, it would put on the face of the Bill the requirement on the Secretary of State to specify by regulations the maximum amount of end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment and end-of-life vehicles to be sent to landfills in each of the different parts of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom as a whole.
These relate to the WEEE Directive and the End of Life Vehicles Directive, both of which are being introduced into United Kingdom legislation separately and the requirements are being legislated for here independently and separately from this.
The first question is why the Government are taking this approach to this legislation. Why are they taking a bits and pieces approach to new waste disposal and collection legislation? Why are we not getting overall legislation? Why are we not getting a Bill that connects together these different European directives and, no doubt, others which are in the pipeline?
The second major question which this raises is: why is the concept of the trading of allowances for waste disposal the right way to go so far as concerns biodegradable municipal waste? I apologise at this stage if Members of the Committee do not like my pronunciation of the word "municipal" but that is how they pronounce it in my part of the world and that is what I shall continue to say. Why is biodegradable municipal waste an appropriate area for the whole concept of trading of allowances, trading of surpluses and buying in of allowances by authorities which do not have sufficient funds to cope with their needs? Why is it simply biodegradable municipal waste where this is appropriate? Why is it not appropriate for other areas?
It is hoped and intended that a high proportion of the waste arising from waste electronic and electrical equipment and end-of-life vehicles will be recycled and that it will not have to be put to landfill or disposed of as waste in other ways. That is true. However, a large residual amount will still be left, although not as large an amount as is the case at present. Why is the concept right in one case and not in these two cases? At this stage, we should be interested to hear the Government's response to those two fundamental questions. That is why we tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I open with two or three irrelevancies. First, it is a pleasure to face the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, once again, and I am sorry that he is not able to be with us tomorrow.
I rise formally to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The Bill is very narrowly drawn. If the Minister is minded to reply that the Bill is a pilot for what they intend to do with all waste, it might begin to make a little sense. Biodegradable domestic waste accounts for approximately only 30 per cent of total waste. It is a specific area and is susceptible to specific treatments, whereas many other wastes require different treatment. It would have been

GC 3
better to have arrived at a strategy for waste and then to break it down into smaller parts, of which this is but one.
I have some sympathy with the Government because they are committed to a deadline which has been arrived at elsewhere and that always creates pressure on the system. I acknowledge that one has to start somewhere, but I cannot help but feel that it is a little less than fortunate that we are beginning on such a narrow base.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who, likewise, I am happy to sit opposite again, has partly answered the question raised by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. As I said at Second Reading, this is a relatively modest and narrow Bill. This provision is intended to fulfil commitments under the Landfill Directive. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, implied, the Government will also fully implement the provisions of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive and the End of Life Vehicles Directive. If we were to legislate in the Bill for the totality of the waste strategy, we should cover a much wider area than even the amendment tempts us to do. We already have the Waste Strategy 2000, which deals with wider issues of waste and what might be needed as a result of the recent Performance and Innovation Unit report on waste strategy. But this part of the Bill is specifically and time-committed to deliver the Landfill Directive.
The other two directives, which have yet to be transposed—the WEEE Directive and the End of Life Vehicle Directive—specify targets for recovery, reuse and recycling of equipment sent for treatment and for the reuse, recovery and recycling of end-of-life vehicles. Those targets are in those directives and we fully intend to implement them. Those targets are pretty challenging as well and will be dealt with in the normal transposition.
Indeed, to incorporate the targets in advance of that transposition and then provide further targets in line with the ones for biodegradable municipal waste could be seen in a different context. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, saying that that was gold plating in advance of the coming directives. The focus of this Bill is on the Landfill Directive.
Moreover, the Government have a policy to minimise waste which arises, rather than specifying maximum quantities allowed in landfill. So we are aiming to increase the quantity of material, in this context as well, that is reused, recycled and recovered, in line with what is in the waste strategy—that is, in line with the waste hierarchy and the strategy that we will be adopting from the PIU report. Clearly, therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, implies, there are much wider issues for the Government to tackle, but this is not the place to tackle them. They will be dealt with either by the transposition of directives or they in line with our broader waste strategy. It is important that we focus on what is provided in the Bill rather than
GC 4
broaden it. That obviously applies to how much is covered by the trading scheme proposed in the Bill as well as to the targets alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
I therefore hope that the Committee will not pursue the amendment because it would hugely widen the Bill and have substantial consequences for later stages of our consideration. We need to deliver the Landfill Directive and this is the means whereby we are doing so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I listened to what the noble Lord said and one thing struck me very forcefully: namely that it is the Government's policy to minimise waste. If that is what we want to do, the Bill starts from the wrong end. I said that on Second Reading and repeat it now. It seems strange that we are to deal with landfill problems through the Bill, rather than starting at the other end by trying to minimise waste. The people of this country are deluged by waste which is then put into landfill sites. We should start at the other end by persuading manufacturers and others not to produce so much waste—packing their goods in so much waste and delivering newspapers and other things to people's doors that they are unable to reject. The problem at the landfill sites could then be much more easily dealt with.
I think that the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Dixon-Smith, have in mind that instead of dealing with the matter piecemeal, the Government should be dealing as a whole with the production of packaging and waste which goes to landfill, the recycling of waste and its final disposal. It seems to me—and no doubt to most other reasonable people—that it should be tackled as a complete problem rather than in this piecemeal way.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. For some time, I have been only on the fringe of this Bill and the issues related to it. It is sometimes beneficial to focus on the small package that appears to be meaningful and then to deal with it. I sense that that is what the Government are attempting to do with the Bill and with the issue of municipal waste.
Since first reading the Bill and looking at the Explanatory Notes, I have been worried not by what is in the Bill but by what is missing from it. As we go through it, I am worried, as, I am sure, is the Minister, about the overlaps that will inevitably occur because of the things which are left out of the Bill and which are not necessarily municipal waste in black bags, such as financial planning and fly-tipping. More often, such items will be motor cars and fridges and so on.
Unless we are careful and take account of the WEEE and End of Life Vehicles Directives, what we debate and finally pass as an Act into the public domain will make interpretation extremely difficult for both local authorities and the judiciary. It will be difficult to decide where the lines are drawn when cases arrive in court, as they inevitably will do.

GC 5
The noble Lord wants seriously to resist this issue, and one side of me has considerable sympathy with that approach. However, I am also seriously worried that many issues are not covered by the Bill. Those will inevitably leak out in a big way when they reach people in the country—local authorities, district councils, the industry itself and those of us who want to find someone who will take 50 quid to dispose of a fridge for us. The impact of the problem and the managing, handling and disposing of all waste produce in the United Kingdom are matters which are not dealt with in the Bill.
Lord Hanningfield: I would add to those comments and endorse them but I must immediately declare an interest as leader of Essex County Council, which is one of the largest authorities in the country for disposable waste. It will be very much affected and will have to implement the Bill, which is putting the cart before the horse.
I agree that we would like some legislation to reduce waste. Holland, for example, has considerable legislation that helps to minimise waste. The Bill will affect and penalise local authorities without assisting them to minimise waste, which is what it should be about.
The Waste Not, Want Not strategy was published a month or two ago, and I gather that there was a waste summit a year ago last November, but there has not been much further action by the Government since then. One would have liked to have seen some real thought about minimising waste, and something included in the Bill about that. It will be very difficult to implement the Bill without some real help in minimising waste.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the Minister responds for a second time, even if we accept the exclusion of what I would call white goods, cars and electronic goods, we are still missing the greater part of the problem of what goes to landfill anyway, because most of those items do not. Instead they go to what in some places is called land reforming, where they are used to create mountains. Mountains of waste fridges do not look very nice.
There is an immense amount of inert waste or all sorts—everything from building footings to rubble from old buildings, timber and so on, which could possibly he reused, although much of it is smashed to pieces as the building is demolished. Much if not all of that goes back into landfill. It would be interesting to hear whether the Landfill Directive is exclusive to the issue of biodegradable domestic refuse or whether it is generally a landfill problem. If it is generally a landfill problem, then frankly what we are dealing with here is missing part of the point. If on the other hand, it is specifically drawn, we are dealing with a different issue. It would be interesting to hear whether there is a linkage, because there certainly ought to be.
Lord Greaves: The Minister referred to the Government's overall strategies, which do of course exist. There is the Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wales, and the thick document, which has just been
GC 6
referred to, Waste Not, Want Not. That is a strategy for tackling the waste problem recently published by the Strategy Unit. Many of us are trying to get our minds round exactly what that strategy means and how it will be implemented.
The existence of those strategic policy documents increases the power of the argument that what we need is legislation which deals with the problem as a whole. The Minister said that there are many interesting things to be discussed, but that this is not the place to do it. I understand his point of view in relation to the Bill, but he will equally understand the frustration experienced by those of us in other parts of the House and some of the organisations who have been considering the Bill on behalf of local government, the waste industry, the environmental movement, or whoever, who see it as a wasted opportunity.
I have no doubt that the Minister's response to many amendments that we will be discussing in Committee will be exactly the same. No doubt he will get thoroughly weary of giving the same response that what we propose is all very interesting, necessary and important, but not part of what he wants to do through the Bill.
Equally, it is absolutely right that we should use the opportunity of the Bill to probe the Government's wider intentions, not least because the Bill cannot avoid being broadened in its implications. It will not exist and operate in a vacuum. It will have knock-on effects, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, on, for example, fly-tipping. It may have knock-on effects on incineration if in order to meet the Bill's requirements there is greater pressure on waste disposal authorities to go for more incineration, which we would certainly deplore. There may be implications for other kinds of landfill, such as inert waste, about which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith has just spoken.
It seems that a measure is being introduced to place a huge amount of pressure on waste collection and disposal authorities to minimise waste in order to meet these targets, but the measure itself does not help them to do so. It is perfectly right and proper that we should probe what the Government are doing to assist them to do that, so that they can carry out the requirements of this Bill. Without that assistance, the Bill will be meaningless. If the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that turns up at landfills does not reduce year on year in line with the targets, the whole thing will fall apart. People may be penalised, but the whole thing will still fall apart.
I do not know whether the Minister wants to respond any further to the discussion before I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty: This is of course a complicated issue. We need a wider waste strategy and it is therefore proper at this early stage in Committee to discuss that, but the way in which the strategy is delivered will vary. Many of the directives and policy ambitions can be delivered without primary legislation. For example, as I described, the End of Life Vehicles Directive and the WEEE Directive will effectively be delivered by simple

GC 7
transposition. We dealt with other aspects of the Landfill Directive by secondary legislation in May. The parts dealing with the targets relating to biodegradable municipal waste in Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the Landfill Directive cannot be dealt with by secondary legislation or direct transposition. That is the reason why we have primary legislation and setting out the means to deliver that part of the directive and the strategy. That is why we have primary legislation setting out the means to deliver that part of the directive and that part of the strategy. Other parts of the strategy will be dealt with by legislative, fiscal and administrative measures. This is required in order to put the requirements of the directive into English law. It does not deal with the whole directive, let alone the whole of waste strategy, nor is it intended to. It is intended to deliver that part which deals with biodegradable municipal waste.
To that extent, noble Lords are being overambitious in trying to pull that all together in one piece of primary legislation. Primary legislation is not the same as a strategy, and we cannot load on to this legislation the other objectives of that strategy, most of which, insofar as they require legislative action, are adequately dealt with in other ways.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, withdraws the amendment, I would like to say that one advantage of primary legislation is that one can discuss the issues far and wide. The advantage of this particular legislation is that we can discuss not merely the narrow aspects of this Bill, but the associated aspects as well. It would be quite wrong if the Committee did not take this opportunity to do just that.
The local government settlement was imposed upon us last week. I have not studied it closely, but it seems to me that local authorities in the South will be penalised to some degree. Yet there is perhaps more biodegradable waste in the South than in other parts of the country.
That might not seem relevant, but recycling is one of the ways of dealing with biodegradable waste. Starving local authorities of the ability to put in schemes for recycling does not help them at all. As I said on Second Reading, if local authorities are going to do the job properly and not impose great penalties on their council tax payers, they need a great deal of help and not hindrance.
This is the value of having a debate of this sort. At least those of us of little importance normally can put our views to the Government in the hope that perhaps they will listen just a bit.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I may have been guilty of inattention or possibly even deafness, but in his response the Minister did not deal with my query about the status of inert waste going to landfill, and whether there was any linkage between that and domestic biodegradable waste.
Lord Whitty: There is no linkage with the provisions here dealing with construction waste, etcetera. Other parts of the Landfill Directive can deal with that.
It may be sensible if I outline the requirements of the directive. Different parts are dealt with in different ways. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that clearly it is open to the Committee to raise all these issues and discuss them. All I am saying is that the requirement for primary legislation to deliver a European target is the main focus of the Bill. That needs to fit in with all sorts of domestic and European obligations. The wider strategy is relevant. That has to be seen to be compatible and part of the delivery of the wider strategy, but it does not attempt to put into primary legislation anything like the totality of that wider strategy. It is quite right that we should discuss the context but I suggest that the Committee does not put too much of the context on the face of the Bill.
4 p.m.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to Members who have taken part in the debate on these amendments. The debate that has taken place will usefully inform the rest of our discussions, and it will resonate through many of the amendments that we shall discuss later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Non-target years]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) If, for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, no amount is specified under subsection (1) for a year to which that subsection applies, the maximum shall not be more than the maximum amount for the last specified year."
The noble Lord said: This is a suitable moment to make the point that, as with so much of the Bill, we are to a large degree flying blind. Clause 1 begins with the words,
"The Secretary of State must by regulations,
but we do not have the regulations, although the clause defines what the regulations may do. In Clause 2 we become even more querulous as it states,
"The Secretary of State may by regulation",
and we do not have the regulations. Clause 1 concerns what are defined as scheme years and Clause 2 deals with the others. Because the Secretary of State "may by regulations specify", he does not have to, which means that there has to be some kind of mechanism for dealing with a non-scheme year that defines what should happen. We had that purpose in mind when we tabled Amendment No. 6.
The purpose is quite simple: it is to prevent someone in a non-scheme year, where there have been no regulations, from tipping in more waste than he or she had done under the regulated year the year before. It seems to us that that kind of safety measure is sensible, because if we are to make progress towards diminishing the amount of biodegradable waste going into landfill, it would be nonsense to have a gap which

GC 9
made it possible for there to he an increase in years where regulations had not been passed and which were not scheme years. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I am not a lawyer, although I have looked at many Bills in my time, but I wish to clarify the situation as I see it. I am sure that the Minister and others will correct me. As I understand it, the target years are laid down by the Landfill Directive for 2010, 2012 and 2020. The assumption that I read into the Bill is that the Secretary of State specifies the maximum amount unilaterally for England. I assume, after receiving proposals from the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, that he will come to an agreement about what will be done in relation to those countries.
As I see it, Amendment No. 6 seeks not to increase the maximum amount by more than the amount for the last specified year. My feeling is that that may slow down progress towards achieving the target year amounts, and I wish to know whether that is the view of the Minister and the target years amounts as specified in the Landfill Directive. Were we to accept the amendment, that may eventually mean that the UK will not meet the targets laid down in the Landfill Directive, although I stand to be corrected if I have interpreted that wrongly. The default rule can seriously impact on councils, but the Secretary of State must pursue co-operative agreement, which would incorporate best practice. I make those observations and I should like clarification as to whether I have correctly interpreted the purpose of the Bill and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
Lord Whitty: No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, can explain the purpose of his amendment. The position in the Bill is that the Secretary of State sets the targets for the scheme years, which indeed reflect the years of the directive, and then agreement is reached, if necessary, on each of the intervening years and allocations made by the Secretary of State for England and by the devolved administrations for the other countries.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am becoming confused. People are using the phrase scheme year; I wonder whether they mean target year. The scheme runs over the whole period, but the directive provides for target years. I do not understand the use of the term scheme year. Perhaps someone can explain.
Lord Whitty: My meaning of scheme year is those years which are specified in the directive. They are indeed targets and if it is easier we will call them target years. They are the targets specified in the directive for the years to which reference was made. The Secretary of State and the devolved administrations may then set targets for the intervening years.
I contend that the amendment is unnecessary because there is already a default position in the Bill in the following clause. If there is not agreement between the allocating authorities on the intervening years, the formula set out in Clause 3, which is based on a
GC 10
reducing scale over the years and to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves drew attention during Second Reading, would come into play. There is therefore already a default position in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, proposes an alternative default position that requires there to be a limit on each year's allocation, which, as I read it, could lead to the result that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves describes. Although I do not think that that is the intention behind the amendment, it could make matters slightly more difficult. However, one would still have to reach the point in the target year, so it would not undermine the requirement to reach the already specified target. Nevertheless, what is already in the Bill is a better formulation because it provides for steady progress towards the target in the period between the target years.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Lord, Lord Whiny, will be happy to hear that I am glad to be persuaded. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Non-target years: default rules]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 21, leave out "16th July" and insert "5th April"
The noble Lord said: I hope that this group of amendments will prove to be rather less controversial than our discussion so far. The Bill provides a date of 16th July 2004 as the end of the first target year. My question concerns 16th July, not 2004. We have a complete system of government and local government dedicated to accounting for everything on an annual base with 5th April as the end of the year. That has become inalienable, although I am bound to say that I can find no more logic in 5th April than I can in 16th July, except that except that 5th April happens to be there. It seems a little funny peculiar, to put it that way, that on this specific issue—and there may well be others—we will have to deal with a different year and a different accounting base. It may be that something is written in the European directive which means that it has to be 16th July, but surely if it were 5th Apr LI in that year, since that is before 16th July, that would not be a problem. I cannot help wondering if we are not in the business of arguing about square tomatoes—sorry, cubic tomatoes—and straight bananas.
It would be interesting to know what the irredeemable logic is of this rather odd date. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: I support my noble friend Lord Dixon Smith on the amendment. As I said earlier, I am leader of a large local authority and we have at least a dozen waste contracts of one kind or another, all of which are April to April, as are all our financial proposals and reckonings. If we are to introduce new jobs, they should really be done April to April. When I talk to my local government colleagues and the Local Government Association, none of us can understand why it should be 16th July. I very much hope the Government will reconsider and have it April to April,

GC 11
otherwise the situation of existing contracts will be extremely difficult and will have to be rethought in the future.
I fully support this amendment and hope, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, that the Government will think seriously about this.
Lord Greaves: I shall briefly support the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in this amendment for all the reasons that he and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, have put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to cubic tomatoes and straight bananas. Since I obviously read the wrong newspapers, I do not know what he is talking about. However, if either of them goes off, they become biodegradable municipal waste, so perhaps they are relevant to this discussion.
Those of us who have been in local government for over half our adult lives have been ruled by the normal annual local government cycle, which runs from April to April. We are probably all agog to hear what the Minister has to tell us about the excitement and significance of 16th July. I shall sit down and wait.
Lord Whitty: I hope the noble Lord is not too agog, because the explanation is fairly straightforward, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon Smith, implied. There is provision within the timetable which does not relate to what I might call standardised horticultural waste or any other European inflexibility but it does relate to 16th July, which was the date from which the directive applies. Therefore, the target dates throughout the scheme relate to 16th July. This may not be particularly helpful from a UK local government financing point of view and I have some understanding and sympathy with the points made here.
To make the allowance scheme more workable for the waste disposal authorities, it may be necessary to run the trading year for allowances in a way that corresponds more closely to the financial year of local authorities. We need to give further consideration to this. For example, it may be possible to run a trading scheme from July in a given year through to April—the end of the financial year. All the reconciliation could take place so that the final result on the target would be known for July, but all contractual aspects would relate to a year ending in April, as is the case for the rest of local authority activity.
There is therefore some possibility of our reconciling what I understand clearly to be the treadmill of the local authority year with the requirement of the directive. The figure is in there at the moment because of the requirement of the directive. We can probably look at this a little further, either subsequent to the Bill or during its consideration. We clearly need to make it compatible with the way in which the local authorities are doing their planning and making their contractual arrangements. In that spirit, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment now, but we will see what we can do on this front.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: Perhaps I may make two points while the Minister is contemplating working towards 5th April. One of my criticisms of the Government over this is that they have left themselves no leeway within the directive. This scheme, this strategy and this Bill gear everything up to happening and happening and, crunch, on the day the directive comes into play either we have met it or we have not. There is no leeway as I understand it. Perhaps moving from July to April would at least give them a few months' leeway.
The second point, wearing a commercial hat as opposed to any other, is that in the commercial sector we have contracts for up to 25 years and more already in place or being put in place, with dates written in. Unravelling that and putting it back together would involve quite serious cost.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I was encouraged by the Minister's comment that he will consider the problems that have been raised. However, I am worried about how this directive was negotiated. Presumably there were British bureaucrats negotiating together with other bureaucrats. I find it disturbing that they did not pick this problem up. They did not seem to realise that our national and local government financial system runs from April to April. I do not know why they did not pick that up and at least ask for a derogation.
I return to the fact that it is fortunate that we are dealing with the Bill as primary legislation. Members of the Committee who are experienced, particularly in local government and in business, have seen straight away how difficult this 16th July date will be. We should all be grateful to the Minister that he at least is listening.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I share the general welcome that the Committee has given to the Minister's readiness to look at this again. When I went to the Treasury as Financial Secretary 32 years ago, I remember asking my officials why the tax year ran from 6th April to 5th April, but the answer was that the reason was lost in the mists of history. It may have had something to do with quarter days for the payment of agricultural rent and so on.
However, company accounts follow the company's accounting year and do not run necessarily from 6th April to 5th April. The Act then deems that that is to be the year on which the profits will be assessed for the tax year, the following 6th April to 5th April. If that were announced, so that in fact you did not have a single broken year, but you actually went on with years to 5th April and it was then always deemed to run from 16th July, would that amount to a breach of the directive? Are we once again guilty of gold plating a directive?
If we chose to interpret the directive so that one could have 12-month periods ending on 5th April and simply say that they will be regarded as the basis year for the subsequent 12 months beginning on 16th July, I cannot believe that anyone would regard that as in any way sufficient to warrant an intervention on the part of the Commission. This is another example of the

GC 13
tendency, to which one has frequently drawn attention, of the Civil Service in this country to gold plate and do the thing in a way that could not conceivably be open to attack. I do not believe that it could be. I wonder whether the Minister will undertake to look at that as an alternative way of proceeding. Instead of having a broken year, which I understood was his suggestion for the first year, the period would always run from 6th April to 5th April. It could then be translated so as to apply for what one may call the commission year beginning on 16th July.
Lord Whitty: This requires further consideration. In regard to England, the Government will be setting the allowances throughout the whole scheme. There will be plenty of notice for one to see the point that one is supposed to reach by the designated year, even if part of the matter is determined separately from what is in the directive. That means that by that year one will have had to reach a certain level.
The date at which the Commission will judge ourselves and other European countries to have met or otherwise those targets will be 16th July. As the noble Lord will know, different EU countries have different financial years. Most operate on the calendar year, but not all. Therefore, in European legislation we need a specific date against which we are all judged. The way in which we attain that may well be compatible with the accounting year for the local authorities. In other words, by April there will need to be in place sufficient reductions of trading or whatever to meet the target when it is measured in July. That is why I said that the year could run from July through to April.
Then the reconciliation took place so we made the figures ready for the Commission in July. That did not cut across contractual arrangements and annual accounting for the local authorities. However, there will be time to plan that because the allowances will be made in advance. It is not as crucial a problem as perhaps the Committee suggests but, nevertheless, it is one that needs some thought and clarification. We cannot remove 16th July as it is a legal requirement under European legislation, but in relation to how we arrive at that, we must be practical about the way in which local authorities carry out their business.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to those who supported me, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, whose eloquence was perhaps rather more clear than my own on the matter of dates. I take the Minister's reply as expressing agreement that we need to look at how we arrive at the date and its conclusion. While he does not feel able, for reasons that I understand, to accept the amendment, he says that there must be ways of accounting for this matter that mean that we can comply both with the date and with the accounting practice of Government. If the noble Lord assures the Committee that the Government will look at how best that can be done, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: Clause 3 is interesting to me as I am a non-mathematician. Anything that contains a formula such as this terrifies me. Having looked at it a number of times, I am still not certain that I understand it. However, if I understand the formula, which I admit is a considerable question, I believe that it produces a straight line graph. If it does, I am unsure whether we are dealing with this matter in the most sensible way. That is the reason why we decided to question this clause.
The problem with changing the practice for dealing with waste is that the process will be uneven and it will not follow a straight line graph. Authorities will be given targets to aim at. That is perfectly straightforward, but if you are changing the system of dealing with waste, you will almost certainly have to get involved with capital expenditure, which will have to be accounted for and provided. That may well also require the provision of plant and buildings, which need planning permission.
Anyone who thinks that getting planning permission for new facilities to handle waste is easy and uncontroversial had better think again quickly. This is likely to prove immensely difficult. I do not know a local community anywhere in the country that will not want these jobs done somewhere else. That is very simple, very basic and very normal.
As local authorities try to overcome these difficulties initially there will appear to be a period of inertia, both because of the physical needs to provide plant, sites and finance, and because of the procedural need to overcome the dreadful business of planning permission.
I would love the Minister to reply that we can overcome that very simply, but he knows as well as I do that unfortunately that is not the case. It is likely that initially things will change very slowly in response to the scheme. Subsequently, we will see an accelerating pace of change as new systems and new plant come on stream and begin to work.
I readily acknowledge that there are some things that can be done quite easily. One can persuade people to segregate waste into metals, glass and biodegradable waste, as many authorities do. However, in some areas where that happens all three are tipped into the same collection lorry. We know what happens to it after that.
That easy avenue is not always available. There is a very real problem in that regard. I would also argue that there is a separate problem. Some authorities in this country have been considerably successful in this area and have managed to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste that is going to landfill already, some by large proportions. The Bill and the formula make no distinction between those who have already gone a long way down that road and those who have scarcely begun. If one was to allow for that—and we have had only a general discussion so far around this issue—one would want to pick the base date for

GC 15
starting to apply the formula back at 1990, before the recycling business started, so that we would be treating those who are good performers and those who are bad performers equally. I would be the first to acknowledge that is not very practical.
How does one overcome that sort of difficulty? We have two serious problems with Clause 3, which will require serious thought before we finish the Bill, although I do not expect the Minister to be too encouraging today on these issues. These problems are inherent in the way the Bill is drafted. Before this legislation is passed, solutions should be found.
The first problem is real even if we disregard the inequity of a flat start date that would put the good boys and the bad boys all back in the same class. The much deeper point arises that there will be an initial period of very slow change before the pace accelerates as new plant and new ideas and so forth come on stream. That situation will be very difficult to overcome and the formula in Clause 3 does not deal with it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, makes a good point. It is true that local people are suspicious, particularly if they are faced with the building of an incinerator. We have probably all been involved in one way or another in applications for incineration plants. Such applications can take a very long time to process, and with very good reason. People are scared of them because they believe that the output from them will be harmful. They also believe that their roads will be made less safe for their children because of the number of heavy lorries which might pass their doorsteps in getting to the incineration plant. The noble Lord has raised very real problems. The same applies to sorting plants. They can be very large and very noisy and, indeed, in some ways can in themselves be polluting. Again, the planning problems must be dealt with and they take time.
Another problem comes to my mind following an experience that I had when serving on a local authority. It is always necessary to be able to dispose of recycled material from a recycling plant. That matter came to mind because in Reading, where, for some time, I was a councillor and leader of the council, after the war we continued with a system to save paper introduced during the war. We collected paper separately and did so for many years.
The problem was that recycled paper was not in demand and therefore all our storage facilities became completely full of paper. We spent thousands of pounds each year collecting the paper separately but we were not able to dispose of it and had to acquire new warehouses in which to store it. Eventually, because it was costing the council the earth, I had to agree that the system should stop. I am sure that there is a warehouse in Reading containing wastepaper that has still not been disposed of.
At this stage, I must return to the issue of the money problem. Recycling plants and incinerators are expensive to build and, in the light of what I said about
GC 16
disposal, could be expensive to operate. As this is a national policy concerning waste disposal, I believe there must be a national solution, or part of a solution, to the financing problem.
I realise that this is a narrow Bill, but some of us are taking the opportunity to widen it slightly. It would be useful to hear from the Minister that he has all these problems in mind. It would also be helpful if he could give an assurance that local authorities will not be presented with a demand to do something for which there could be heavy penalties which they simply cannot meet because of lack of resources. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said, they may not be able to grant or achieve the necessary planning permissions.
Lord Whitty: This clause is a devolved clause. If the Secretary of State wished to set an alternative structure for England, reflecting some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others, an alternative pattern for a straight line could be proposed. If the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Executive proposed an alternative configuration of the line, provided the Secretary of State agreed, that would likewise take us between the target years and would be acceptable. That is a default position that arises only when other considerations have been taken into account but not pursued. It is felt that it is best to rely on that default position.
The default rules are based on the rate of progress which would be needed to meet the target year targets, in equal steps, as the noble Lord has said—in other words, in a straight line. I cannot believe that there could be an alternative default position that did not raise more problems, but it is open to authorities to take a different view of what the progress between target years should be.
It is equally important to recognise that all the targets will have been set well in advance. One of the main propositions in the Bill on the trading scheme provides the ability for a local authority, faced with problems of investment, timing, length of planning procedures, inability to find a market for recyclable goods and so on, to borrow or to bank, if it has exceeded the target, thereby, allowing it to smooth out the allowances that it has been allocated by trading in the market. In other words, the whole point of the trading part of the Bill is to allow authorities to smooth out those step challenges by a process of banking and borrowing.
Amendments have been tabled by various noble Lords, opposing the banking and certainly the borrowing requirements. Nevertheless the Bill is consistent in that it gives authorities flexibility to be able to smooth out their progress by operating in the market. However, the clause deals with the default rules and it would be difficult to see what other default rule one could have for measuring progress between what are fixed target years. There is flexibility for the

GC 17
Secretary of State and the other allocation authorities, and there is flexibility for the individual authority through the trading scheme.
Lord Glentoran: I have one practical point. I apologise for referring to another debate if noble Lords have not read it, but in a recent debate, when only four noble Lords were in the House—the noble Lord, myself and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Greaves—the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that some local authorities were recycling 40 per cent of municipal waste and some only 2 per cent.
I am worried about the trading part of the Bill. I have been coming from the same place all the time: the financial input of the capital requirements and the money that needs to go in—the £1.5 billion a year for ten years, that the industry tells us it needs. It appears that there will be an encouragement on local authorities that are equipped to recycle only 2 per cent of their municipal waste to spend all their money buying from those that now recycle 40 per cent, that have presumably spent a great deal of capital and that have sophisticated equipment to allow them to recycle that percentage.
In some ways, as the clause is currently drafted, I wonder whether it is demotivating to what one might call the "poorer" authorities—if, indeed, they are the poorer authorities; the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made the point that they might be. Those authorities may not be motivated to invest in their own capital plant but will simply spend money and buy the facilities from others. I am not sure whether in the medium—let alone the long—term that is where we want to go.
Lord Hanningfield: In supporting my noble friend, I do not like to give the example of Essex again. However, Essex has 12 district councils which are collection authorities, and we have two unitary authorities—one being Southend, which has no disposal facilities at all as it is totally built up. We tried to create a consortium between the two unitary authorities, the 12 district councils and the one county council.
In supporting my noble friend, I should say that district councils have totally different rates of recycling. Some are recycling 40 per cent and others are recycling hardly anything. That is why I said at the beginning that it will be almost impossible to operate the Bill. I am sure that we shall discuss this matter a great deal in Committee. It will be difficult to penalise disposal authorities when the fault lies with the collection authorities which cannot meet the targets. We shall return to that issue.
We have spent two years trying to get the authorities to agree on the matter within a consortium. The word "incineration" is already engraved on my heart. We have had riots and disturbances as no one in Essex wants incineration. In fact, I have given an undertaking that there will be no incineration without a referendum in our county. Therefore, we are considering different and very expensive methods of disposal, and we hope that modern technology will
GC 18
catch up a little. In many parts of the country, incineration is not acceptable. We need to find different ways to deal with waste and we are trying to speed up technology in order to find methods of doing so.
I repeat what I said at the beginning: this is a case of putting the cart before the horse. We need to encourage people to minimise waste and we need to encourage district councils, which are the collection authorities, in the eastern region. Eighty-eight per cent of councils in that region are two-tier councils and that is why the Bill is almost impossible to operate in England. It will be easy to do so in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland because the councils there are all unitary. But, in England where 70 per cent or so are two-tier councils and in the eastern region 88 per cent are two-tier, unless there is total co-operation between district and county councils, the Bill will not work at all. Therefore, I add to and endorse what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith seeks to achieve in the amendment. We need to examine fundamentally the whole reason behind the Bill and how it will operate.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: This has been an interesting discussion because it has gone to the heart of the problems presented by the Bill. I am grateful to those who have supported, in various ways, the initial remarks that I made.
I am not particularly encouraged by what the Minister said. I understand his point that the Bill sets out a default position and I understand his difficulty in setting it out in any other way than this. But, in view of the realities of the problems that we face, it would almost be better if it were not there.
In returning to the subject of financing and the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, it would be interesting to know whether there are "identified ad lib funds" to make all this work. At the very least, there will need to be some expensive installations. I began to describe them at Second Reading and I completely understand the problem that everyone has with incineration. I, myself, do not like incineration and I do not believe that anyone should build incinerators any more. They simply convert one form of pollution into another form of pollution, and that is not what the business should be about.
My favourite solution—an expensive one—is anaerobic digestion. I was not serious when I mentioned turning soiled nappies into wallpaper but it is happening in Belgium and the United States with the huge subsidy that I mentioned. There are all kinds of ways of dealing with the problem, but I prefer anaerobic fermentation because biodegradable waste can be turned into ethanol. In that process there is an irreducible minimum of waste that has to be disposed of, but the volume can be greatly reduced, producing something very useful which is a greenfill. We do not have to worry too much about incinerators but I cannot accept that an anaerobic digestion plant will be any less controversial, wherever one decides to put it. That is one problem.

GC 19
I turn to the market being intended to even matters out so that the good performers have something to sell. I refer to good and poor performers because, when one considers rate of progress, some will be more successful than others. Perhaps one should consider how that can be carried out if an authority's base point is based on what it collects or what it disposes of at the moment. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield, when discussing Essex, did not mention London; he was discussing the Essex issue only. For a long time Essex has been a major disposal facility for London.
That is a slight red herring to what we are talking about but it is a potent issue. The noble Lord mentioned waste disposal authorities not just in London but in other metropolitan areas. They are not waste disposal authorities at all; they are waste collection authorities because they have no facilities to dispose of waste within their boundaries. If we are realistic about this point, in the Bill there is an appalling problem with definitions.
I return to the awful difficulty about the administrative and planning problems that will impose a delay. The market will not be able to even that out unless—the Minister can do this although it will cause a furious row in local authorities—he allocates waste to each authority on a notional volume or quantum of waste—perhaps by weight—per capita so that every authority starts with the same per capita allowance. One will not be able to make any provision either to help authorities that are "good performers" vis-à-vis those that are "poorer performers", nor will there be anything to trade initially.
The other way is to give every authority an allowance that is too big to start with but that would defeat the whole point of the exercise. One has to assume that the sum of the allocations that are made in the first distribution will equal the volume of waste presently being disposed of to landfill in that way.
I hope that the Minister will tell me that that assumption is correct. If it is not correct perhaps the problems that I foresee will be easier to deal with. If every authority in a trading scheme starts where it is now on day one, no authority will have anything to trade until three, four or five years down the scheme, by which time we shall be running up to the second date. It will be a difficult exercise. I can see a number of authorities getting into difficulties, having to pay large sums of money to the Treasury, or having large sums of money extracted from them by the Treasury. The interesting point about that is that with something like 84 per cent of all funding coming from central government to local government, is the Treasury going to pay its tranche? I assume not. The council tax payers are probably going to have to pay it.
If it is simply the council tax payers paying it, it will be very difficult and certainly in the initial year, it could impose completely unreasonable burdens. While I can see that the market system might have some validity by about 2015, for the first five or eight years it is not going to be any help at all. I come back to the fact that the default position is a straight line graph. If we are
GC 20
not going to use that and we simply have the three dates, what is going to happen? If the straight line is in effect impractical, which I suggest very strongly it is, do not know why we have Clause 3 in the Bill.
Lord Whitty: I am unsure whether the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is suggesting that we should have no default position in the Bill. The whole tenor of the rest of his remarks and those of some of his colleagues has been that we need to be able to plan this and to have a clear strategy for developing it. The allocations will naturally be based on the actual waste. The aim is to minimise or reduce the amount that is landfilled. The landfill dimension can then be traded.
Although it is true that the amount of trading will grow and be cumulative—so there will be less trading flexibility at the beginning of the scheme than at the end of it—it is also true that the steps at the beginning will be easier than those at the end. Therefore, the flexibility required further down the line will increasingly be provided by the trading market that we are creating. Given that we have to meet the targets, all that this clause is doing—and we have spent quite some time on it partly because of the attention it attracts through its use of algebra—is to show that we need to ensure that we have a pattern to which people can work.
Clearly, we need some flexibility of work on the part of the allocation authorities as well as the individual authorities in order to meet those targets. However, we have to ensure that there is a pattern against which they are judging themselves and the Government are judging them. As the landfill trading scheme increasingly provides flexibility into the system, it will become easier for us to say that the default line is the appropriate line. It may be that at the earlier stages, different judgments will have to be made but we are not yet at that stage.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I would like to be absolutely clear about that. Does it mean that the allocations would be on the basis of total waste collected in a given area or on the basis of that which is already sent to landfill? This is a critical point.
Lord Whitty: The targets will be in terms of landfill but based on the total waste that arises—biodegradable municipal waste.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Will the initial allocations to waste disposal authorities be based on the total waste they collect at the present date or on the total waste that they presently send to landfill? If it is the total waste they collect, there will of course be some room for flexibility and I would like an assurance that that is what I should read into it. Then I have a final point to make.
Lord Whitty: The allocations will be based on the biodegradable municipal waste that is collected, not on the amount currently or historically landfilled.
Lord Hanningfield: In 1991.
Lord Whitty: Yes, in whatever was the previous base year.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for that assurance. That gives me a little bit more cause for optimism.
I wish to raise a final point. Again, I am sorry to have to do this in this way and if the Minister tells me it is an unfair fast ball I shall not be in the least surprised, but it seems to me there is a perfectly valid question to ask. What happens if the Treasury does its assessment and decides that the cost of meeting the liabilities under the directive by introducing treatment plants and so on—even allowing for the fact that we may be able to attract considerable sums from private operators who want to be partners in the business enterprises—is greater than the cost of paying the fines? What happens then? That is one reason why there is so much smuggling into this country of products such as tobacco and alcohol.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may raise a short point that has been worrying me about the training system as this debate has proceeded. As I understand it, one problem of landfill is that landfill itself produces greenhouse gases. That is one reason why we do not want landfill—as well as the fact that we are running out of landfill sites. However, if we are to have tradeable arrangements, does that not mean that waste will be conveyed from one area to another to be dealt with? Am I right? Perhaps I am wrong, but I shall continue. If so, it will have to be transported—presumably by lorry—which will add to the emissions that cause greenhouse gases. Has that been taken into account?
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is confusing two things. The trading scheme is not a literal trading scheme; people are not trading lumps of rubbish with each other. Clearly, that goes on already. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out earlier, most London boroughs dispose of much of their waste outside the area in which the waste arises—the noble Lord was principally concerned about Essex.
That will continue and there is nothing in the trading scheme that makes it more or less likely. Of course, that has the consequences to which the noble Lord refers, but what is traded under the trading scheme is not the literal waste, it is the allowance for one's ability to put that waste into landfill. It is almost a conceptual figure. Nothing physical moves under the trading scheme, and there is therefore no additional impact on greenhouse gases.
I shall answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the Treasury view in two ways. First, under the coming spending review, the Treasury has already made allowance in the allocations to my department and in the rate support grant settlement for notionally significant amounts of money to tackle those waste problems. Other
GC 22
streams—the private finance initiative and others—are available to deal with those capital dimensions, in particular, of waste disposal.
We shall return later to the question of assessing whether it is better to comply or to face the penalty for not complying, but the sanctions must he more expensive than the cost of complying. Otherwise we shall indeed have smuggling and various other analogous activities. One reason that the penalties are not specified in the Bill is that to some extent we shall have to set them in line with the market, which itself reflects the compliance cost. Otherwise the sanctions will not work.
5 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have one final question before I withdraw the amendment, as I must. Has a serious attempt been made to assess the total compliance cost of the directive? I would be most interested to know if that is so.
Lord Whitty: I do not think that such an estimate can be made. There are different ways of complying with the target and those decisions will come clown to the individual local authorities' waste minimisation strategies, to start with, as has been said, and the choice of alternatives to landfill will be different. Clearly there are significant capital costs involved in recycling, incineration and anaerobic digestion, but the choice of ways to meet the targets will he up to individual local authorities.
In the current spending round, sufficient allocation is already raised to ensure that the early years are covered. I am informed that the impact assessment is available in the Library should the noble Lord care to refer to it, perhaps we can return to the matter later.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate. In particular, I am grateful to the Minister, because lie has done everything that he can to be helpful. I sympathise with him in his dilemma, but the only certainty to come out of the discussion is that we are flying uncertainly into an uncertain future. I cannot put it any other way. Perhaps that must happen. I have no doubt that we will return to this debate in many forms before we have dealt with the Bill, even if we do not return to this specific target—if I may use that pun.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Allocation of landfill allowances]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 44, after "made" insert "at least thirty weeks"
The noble Lord said: These amendments address the problem that the Bill as drafted simply states that,
"An allocation must be made before the beginning of the year to which it relates".
That is fine, but if one is expecting those allocations to be on an ever-diminishing scale, a number of factors are involved. I will not go over the ground covered in debate on previous amendments, which complicate the issue, but if such allocations can be made on, let us say,

GC 23
1st February for a year beginning on 1st April, if the allocation is tight, that does not give anyone a great deal of time to do anything about it.
Unless we have a standard about the timing of Government edicts in relation to future allocations so that they arrive well in advance, local authorities will hear only a short time in advance. If we are to have steady progress towards the directive targets, we need an announcement of allocations by 1st September the previous year if dramatic changes are to be made. Then everyone would know well in advance where they were going. We cannot have these announcements made at the last minute. I would almost go as far as to say that you ought to be able to sit down now—whether or not you use the formula, which I disagree with—and say what the targets for the first, second and third target years will be and what each authority's share will be. I am sure that it is a fairly simple calculation which could be done, but whether any government would choose to make targets that far ahead remains to be seen.
The other point is that the targets are, in any event, amendable. Once again, however, amendments must come well in advance so that people have time to plan for change. If you have been aiming at one particular target, because we know where the theoretical line is, and reality suggests that a tighter target will be necessary, considerable planning will be needed. At a small scale, this comes back to the question of investment decisions and how things should be handled. One might be talking about training staff and so on. It is a continuation of the same argument but, in this case, on a much more micro scale. I am pleading that, when these announcements are made, they should be made well in advance of the year in which they are to apply. This is a very familiar argument, which the Minister will recognise from a number of other occasions about other issues. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on this amendment. It is clearly prudent to have a period of about 30 weeks' notice. Planning and budgeting are extremely difficult for local authorities. A great deal of detailed work and consultation with committees who are dealing with these matters are required. As we know, directions are very often made. Without this sort of notice so that we can see the precise parameters for decisions and actions, we would be operating in a dark fog.
Lord Whitty: If the Bill were solely confined to England, there would be no difficulty in meeting everything that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has indicated. This requires some flexibility on how the other devolved administrations set their allocations, which is why it is not laid down here.
I assure the Committee that we intend to set the targets for each waste disposal authority in England and the full allocation of its allowances at the beginning of the scheme. In other words, we would set the targets all the way through to 2020, taking account
GC 24
of the full derogation. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, doubted that. That would give a real time per item for making some quite difficult planning and investment decisions, as the noble Lord rightly said.
That is our intention for England, well in advance of the timetable that noble Lords have argued for. However, I need to leave some flexibility for our Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues, as they have a different approach to their method of allocation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am encouraged by what the Minister has said.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I apologise for not rising to my feet sooner. What the Minister has said about the Government's intentions about announcing the allocations for England is reassuring. However, it is highly unsatisfactory that we should be faced with legislation drawn up in this rather brutal, uncompromising way because of the necessity of taking account of what will happen with the devolved administrations. Surely, it would be possible for the draftsmen to deal in this clause with what will happen in England. What will DEFRA do about this? If it is not possible to write it into the Bill, is the noble Lord prepared to give an undertaking that what he has told the Committee this afternoon about the notice that the department will give will be available for all to see in regulations? Whether it is up to the end of the whole scheme or whether, as my noble friend suggested, it is two or three years ahead is a detail on which I am not competent to express a view. However, I find it extremely unsatisfactory that we are apparently faced with a statutory provision that simply says it has to be done before, with no indication as to how that will be carried out. The Minister may be advised to go further than he has done and say that this must now be spelt out, if not on the face of the Bill, then at least in the regulations that will be made under the Bill.
Lord Whitty: The provisions for delivering this will be in regulations. I cannot undertake to provide the regulations during the course of the proceedings on the Bill. Apart from anything else, we would need to consult widely over a reasonable period on the regulations. However, the issue will be included in regulations. My point is that we need some equivalence between the English authorities, under the Secretary of State, and the other authorities. We must allow those other authorities, under the devolution settlement, their ability to adopt different ways of meeting the UK targets than those adopted in England. There is a UK obligation and it is incumbent on the UK Parliament to legislate for means whereby it is met, but there is some devolving of the responsibilities for the means of reaching those targets. That means I need to keep some flexibility in the legislation for the devolved administrations to operate differently from England.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I expect the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reforms had some interesting comments in this area, and I entirely agree

GC 25
with my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. This will probably be the subject of another report in another debate in the House at some point. I am slightly encouraged by what the Minister has said in response to this group of amendments, which I shall study. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) In performing the duty under subsection (1), an allocating authority must specify the location of landfills to be used by each waste disposal authority and the maximum quantity that may be deposited in each landfill."
The noble Lord said: Here we have a large group of probing amendments. These clauses appear to make it possible for disposal authorities to borrow against their future allocations in order to deal with a problem that they have in the immediate present, if they are not able to purchase their way out of trouble under the trading scheme, not to put too fine a point on it. That would be rather like selling your birthright for a mess of pottage, because the local authority would have no certainty that they could trade up by buying allocation if the surplus they required to dispose of were to persist into the future. We are a little in the position of the European Central Bank trying to propose limits on budget deficits for nation states. I am not sure that the Bill as drafted is wise. That is why we have proposed this group of amendments, which we think will provide a more controllable situation for the future. Exactly how is the use of forward allowances supposed to work? It seems to create a problem greater than the one it is trying to solve. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am relieved to hear my noble friend say that this is a probing amendment. As I read Amendment No. 10 and some of the others grouped with it, it seems that my noble friend is asking that the authority should not only make an allocation to each local authority for what it may do, but tell it how to do it. I would find that difficult to support. If this amendment is no more than a peg to hang questions on, I shall be interested to hear the answers. If my noble friend were to decide at a later stage in the Bill to take it to a Division, I would not be able to support it. I may have misunderstood the situation, but my noble friend seems be seeking to grant the Government powers to do all sorts of things that I most assuredly do not believe they should have.
Lord Greaves: I hesitate to intervene in some of the arguments, but I rise to support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I was mystified by this group of amendments, partly because there seem to be at least three different issues involved, so I could not understand why they were all grouped together Secondly, I was mystified by the introduction of them by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, because he seemed to be speaking to Amendment No. 49 and not to the rest of the amendments in the group.
GC 26
I had to keep pinching myself and saying, we are discussing the group that starts with Amendment No. 10. The third reason I am mystified is that he seemed to be proposing a system for operating the scheme that owes more to the old command economies of Eastern Europe than to the market economy to which, under New Labour, we are now all wedded.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Not all of us.
Lord Greaves: I was speaking ironically. I speak first of all to Amendment No. 49, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was speaking. It seems to be a probing amendment to find out more from the Government about how the trading of allowances between different authorities might work, how the use of allowances by a particular authority from an earlier or later year might work and how they might be saved up for later years. That seems to me what Amendment No. 49 is about and it is what the noble Lord was talking about. It will be interesting to hear more about that from the Government, because it underlines the essence of the Bill and is behind many of the discussions we will be having on other amendments.
Amendment No. 74 is a curious amendment aimed at strategy. I wondered why it was in this group. It says:
"reducing the distance travelled by vehicles transporting biodegradable municipal waste to landfill in order that by 2010 no journey is longer than 40 miles and by 2020 no journey is longer than 25 miles".
On the face of it, that appears to be a laudable aim.
However, it is not clear why those particular distances have been laid down, given the geography of the country and the difficulties, as the noble Lord and his colleagues have set out, that many councils have in finding landfill sites in which to deposit their waste. Clearly, this is a desirable aim but it is not clear how the noble Lord intends that it should be brought about or by what mechanisms. It would be useful to have such a debate and it would be interesting to know what the Government have to say about that. It is clearly desirable to do that if it can be achieved.
The rest of the amendments concern imposing detailed control over landfill sites and the deposit of waste at such sites, apparently by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will tell waste disposal authorities exactly to which sites they have to take their waste and to limit the size of them. The amendments will impose duties on landfill operators not to take more biodegradable municipal waste than is laid down by the Secretary of State or by the appropriate authorities in the devolved administrations. They will set out penalties for landfill site operators as well as for waste disposal authorities if they contravene those duties and set up a system for monitoring the process.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I find this proposal extraordinary. If we believe in the traditional delivery of services through local authorities, I would not want to see that kind of detailed central control over the county councils and unitary authorities in disposing of landfill. That appears to be inappropriate if we are to move towards a more market-based solution.

GC 27
I do not know whether these amendments were tabled by a person or persons in the Conservative Party and so the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was lumbered with them which is why he did not speak to them in great detail. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I would say that if the Conservatives want to push this command-control philosophy, we shall not support them in the Lobbies.
Lord Glentoran: That is a sound way of acquiring a denial from the Government on the matter. On the commercial side I would sincerely hope, if I were the chief executive of Cleanaway, that no government or local authority would tell me where I was to put the waste that I had collected. I would like to have that confirmed.
Lord Whitty: Like other noble Lords, I am slightly bemused by this. The amendment as proposed suggests maximum bureaucracy on the private sector with maximum inflexibility on local authorities. I know well that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, normally argues the exact opposite. Therefore, I cannot accept Amendment No. 10 or the other elements of the command economy to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, refers.
The noble Lord helpfully redefined the real intention of this group of amendments as being Amendment No. 49. In the guise of a definition, that prevents borrowing allowances from future years. That would again limit the flexibility available in the scheme so that it will, in effect—as dealt with in a later amendment—limit trading to the allocations in the current year. That would be a severe restriction on the flexibility of meeting the targets. Therefore, none of this group of amendments is soundly based, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, never intended that they should have the effect that they appear to have.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I knew that this group of amendments would jump up and beat me about the head but I do not apologise for tabling them. Two or three serious points arise, and barring one's own allowances from the future seems to me to be extremely hazardous. That is the first point.
Perhaps strategically more important is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the question of mileage travelled. If we are to have targets to send less waste to landfill, then we must have new plant in order to handle that material and that plant should be constructed where the waste arises.
The amendment as proposed is a pot shot and it is designed to provoke a debate. I would be the first to acknowledge that, in sum, the amendments are even more Stalinist than the Bill. They simply apply at the local level what is being applied to the disposal authorities by, in this instance, the national authority. There is a national authority for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland because that is the way that the Bill has had to be drafted.
GC 28
My noble friend Lord Hanningfield talked about the difficulties of dealing with this matter on a shire-county basis. The reality is that, in effect, a waste disposal authority in a shire county will have to impose this type of restriction on the waste collection authorities within its area. A deep problem lies in that. I certainly know of one situation where waste is taken much further than is expected or is necessary. The collecting authorities have realised that if they go down country roads and through villages to a disposal facility 20 miles away, they do not become jammed in on a crowded motorway in taking the waste where they are supposed to take it only 12 miles away.
As my noble friend Lord Glentoran said, if you collect waste, the problem is that no one will tell you where to tip it. It is tipped in the most convenient place but that may not be where it is supposed to go. However, people who operate the disposal facility will be happy to take it because, so far as they are concerned, it is all grist to the mill.
Therefore, a problem lies behind the amendment, and I do not apologise for giving a slightly long explanation at the end before withdrawing it. Some points need serious consideration. Certainly, strategically the mileage issue will become very important. I entirely agree that the figures are purely arbitrary, and one needs to think about that. But the Bill needs to contain a strategic aim to reduce such things because they form yet another type of waste. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 12A:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) The allocating authorities shall indicate the allowances for each year to 2020."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 12A simply indicates what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has already said will happen. If I understand matters correctly, he has said that the Government will make notional calculations of where we should be in 2020. If that is so, I do not need to argue this point any further. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm that that was what he said at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may clarify that my noble friend Lord Whitty explained the Government's position with regard to England. Of course, not all constituent countries of the UK will necessarily take part in the trading scheme. It is therefore inappropriate, to remove the ability of the Parliament and Assemblies to act flexibly according to local circumstances. However, the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, sought was with regard to England and that can be given.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Alteration of allocations under section 4]:
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 14A:
Page 4. line 16, at end insert—
"( ) In the event that the allocated amounts are less than the amounts already contracted to be disposed of by landfill operators and, as a consequence, compensation is payable, the allocating authority will indemnify the waste disposal authority."
The noble Lord said: This, again, is a probing amendment, but it has a serious point behind it. Many waste disposal contracts are made for periods of 30 years; quite a lot are made for 25 years. It is rare to find one for less than 20 years. I happen to know of a number of local authorities that have been turning over their contracts in the last two or three years and contracting for such very long periods of time.
I cannot expect an answer to the technical nature of this question, but the problem that may arise is that more contracts have been made to dispose of waste than will be permitted by the scheme now being advanced in its later years. If so, unless some other accommodation is made, a contractor may have a contract to dispose of, let us say, 100,000 tonnes of waste per annum, but under the scheme, only 80,000 tonnes of waste are permitted to come to him. He may say, "You are reducing my income by 20 per cent", and there may be a question of compensation.
The purpose of the amendment is to probe what is likely to happen in that situation. It may be a theoretical situation; sufficient contracts may run out in the intervening period for that not to be a problem. However, it would be interesting to know whether any research has been done on the matter to discover what is the precise situation. If not, perhaps I can have an assurance that it will be done. Perhaps I will be told, as is so often the case, that I am under a complete misapprehension and that the world is not like that. However, I fear that it is. I know that such very long-term contracts are in place and that the Bill could cut across them to the embarrassment of all concerned unless some other accommodation is made. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: It would depend on the nature of the contracts whether that problem arose. I would doubt that many contracts specify 20 years in advance how much—by waste or value—the contract for a particular landfill should be. People have known about the directive since 1999—in practice, for a year or two before that. In any case, I do not think that contracts are likely to run into that difficulty. It would be difficult for the Government to say that we had a comprehensive view of that, but it is certainly not a problem that has been widely raised with us by local authorities. Any contract signed since 1999 should not run into that problem. With any contract that was signed before, one would have to consider the particulars. I have received no indication of
GC 30
substantial problems, because those contracts tend to be in terms not of quantum but of service. If the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, or his contacts in disposal authorities care to furnish further information, no doubt we can consider it. However, I am not prepared to make a commitment to compensation in the way that the amendment would provide. I doubt whether the problem is as great as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the Minister's response. I am bound to say that I have been unable to quantify whether there is such a problem, which is why this is a probing amendment. The Minister is reassuring in that he thinks there is probably not a problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Borrowing and banking of landfill allowances]:
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 22, leave out "by regulations" and insert "nor"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 15, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17, which is really part and parcel of the same amendment. They represent a fairly draconian way to probe certain aspects of the inter-year utilisation of allowances—the movement of allowances and use of them either one year later or one year earlier than the year in which they are granted, the movement of allowances between years that fall between target years.
The real reason for moving the amendment—perhaps we may have found a less draconian way of doing it, but this is what we have done—is to probe the Government on how the banking of permits may actually act as a disincentive for waste disposal authorities to improve continuously, year on year.
A good authority—we are discussing good and bad authorities here—which does not send a great deal of biodegradable and municipal waste to landfill, or at least sends less than its allowance for the current year, will have a surplus. Under the proposals, it can bank that surplus for future years. Its allowance—the amount of waste that it is allowed to send to landfill—will reduce in those future years. However, if it is allowed to use its present good position to build up credits, there seems to be a disincentive built into the system for that authority—although its practice is good at present—to continue to improve. There is a disincentive for the authority to invest in the required new infrastructure or to devote energy and attention to improving its systems and working with waste collection authorities—if it is not one itself—to reduce the amount of waste collected.
There seems to be a disincentive built into the system. It will be interesting to hear the Government's view. They may say that, if it is a good authority now, it will want to continue to improve. However, given the financial pressures on local authorities, which will not go away, if they are already ahead of the game and can keep going for a further two years on the basis of the allowances that they are banking, they may decide to spend their money on something else, where the

GC 31
pressure is greater from the electors, the Government or all the other bodies that now police local authorities. There seems to be a disincentive, and it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Two amendments, Amendments Nos. 16 and 18, in my name are grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and were tabled with a similar purpose in mind. It seems to me that once one starts to permit borrowing forward, or, indeed, carrying unused allowance back, one begins to acknowledge what I would call the "unsafety" of the formula and the straight-line approach to the whole problem. We do not consider that to be right.
We do not like this clause. If all that is needed is to carry allowances forward, that would be done far more easily by accepting our Amendment No. 18. We are in complete agreement that there is a danger here that we begin to erode the original purpose of the Bill by including too much flexibility.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am in some difficulty because I shall have to repeat the replies in this short debate when we come to Amendments Nos. 19 and 21.
With regard to the general point raised by both the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Dixon-Smith, the Government consider it useful that allocating authorities should be able to provide by balancing one year against another; for example, in the event that they were working towards a major investment in year three. This group of amendments, which seeks to limit the inclusion of borrowing in the trading scheme, concerns a matter referred to in the Landfill Directive consultation exercise. It will no doubt be referred to again when the draft scheme goes out for consultation. We acknowledge that some issues surrounding the inclusion of borrowing will need to be brought out in the consultation exercise and that risks are attached to banning borrowing completely at this stage. The balance needs to be kept.
The allowance mechanism is intended as a trading scheme and it is vital that the market for trading has the opportunity to work effectively. Were we to exclude borrowing, we could make that more difficult to achieve, particularly if banking is to be permitted. The points made by Members of the Committee about the different circumstances of different waste disposal authorities underpin the importance of a trading scheme. It is also important that an overall scheme, which does not exclude matters such as this, should be available for consultation so that the whole issue can be seen in context.
In response to the specific point raised, WDAs will need to meet the targets. Some will bank but it is important not to lose allowances because we need to be certain that WDAs are pulled into the system.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, I do not believe that she responded to the particular point that I raised—that is, the system
GC 32
may have built into it a disincentive for authorities. In a particular year, authorities may gain allowances that they are not using and they may be able to move those forward to succeeding years. As a result, they will stand still in terms of performance in relation to landfill. For example, this year they may send a certain amount of biodegradable municipal waste for landfill and they may still be sending the same amount in two years' time because they are able to carry allowances forward.
Under those circumstances, authorities might take a very short-term view. But at present many local authorities are forced into short-term views by the financial circumstances in which they find themselves. I raised the point about the potential disincentive within the system to people to continue to improve year by year. The noble Baroness did not tackle that.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, feels that way. The incentive is the fact that in the end the disposal authorities have to meet their targets. We are talking about the period and the mechanism for achieving that. However, if the noble Lord is not satisfied with the answer, I would be delighted to write to him, sending copies to other noble Lords.
Lord Greaves: I have the promise of a letter, and perhaps I will get a Christmas card as well! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: So that there is no misunderstanding, I am afraid I do not send Christmas cards. However, I shall include the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on my list of would-have-been Christmas cards, and my donation to charity as an alternative will be increased.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 38. leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments deals with the question that if local authorities were allowed to carry the balances forward, there would be no need to set quantitative limits to those balances. Any serious over-allowance can be dealt with subsequently when there is a new annual target mode. If there were no inter-year utilisation of allowances, there would be no need for a system of charging for the facility of making inter-year allowances. We believed that it was worth tabling the amendments again to probe the Government's thinking behind the particular wording of these clauses. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: On this probing situation, paragraph (c) makes provision for quantitative limits, as has been said, on the inter-year utilisation of allowances.

GC 33
The impact of Amendment No. 19 would negative that by leaving it out. Presumably the amendment could allow unlimited transference of allowances from one year to another as a result of the amendment. The result could be that it would assist those councils that have been particularly slow in taking action and in catching up and it could enable other councils to speed up in earlier years. Two effects of that could be beneficial. On the other hand, it would be difficult to plan for the amount of control available.
I refer to Amendment No. 21. It refers to subsection (3) which includes a long list of provisions. I refer to one of them. Paragraph (i) makes provision for levying fees and charges, for example, on persons engaged in inter-year utilisation of allowances. I have some concerns about that. Are the fees to be levied likely to be prohibitive? No Minister would admit to that, but that could be the case. They could have a negative effect and perhaps would be likely to discourage inter-year utilisation of allowances. Picking up on that one point, this is perhaps an example of why this amendment has been tabled. I would be interested to see whether I can be reassured on that point, for example.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Bill refers to "inter-year utilisation", which relates to years between target years. It is extremely important to place on record that, while variance can be accepted and is part of the market scheme, in inter-years there can be no transference over the target years. The target years are, thus, the fixed points that apply to the individual authorities. The Bill allows appropriate flexibility between those two fixed points. I hope that helps the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, with the issue he raised before.
The amendments would remove from the examples of provisions which the regulations make, those which limit inter-year utilisation of allowances, including quantitative limits on inter-year utilisation of allowances and suspension of inter-year utilisation of allowances and the charging of fees.
We believe it is useful that allocating authorities should be able to provide for inter-year utilisation of allowances, giving maximum flexibility. Thus, for example, if a waste disposal authority were planning a major investment in year 3, it could use the allowances in earlier years, knowing that borrowing would be compensated for in later years. Again, I flag up the difference between that and the target year. Equally, allocating authorities may need to set limits on such uses of allowances for other years. There may, for example, be concern that there should be a maximum, to ensure that in scheme years between target years the amount of biodegradable municipal waste landfill does not exceed the amount permitted to be landfilled in the previous target year.
The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, raised questions about the use of fees. The intention is that these could be useful to compensate for additional administrative costs and to discourage unnecessary inter-year
GC 34
utilisation. Therefore, I assure him that it would not be intended to be on a scale that would be punitive and savage in the way he feared.
We believe that these are issues for each allocating authority in setting up a scheme and it is proper to express the full range of flexibility they might need. I hope I have reassured all noble Lords on that point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, which helpfully set out the background very fully. That is what we hoped for when we tabled these amendments. We will study the details and in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 7, leave out from "for" to "requirement" in line 8 and insert "the allocating authority to make available to each waste collection authority full financial resources incurred by each waste collection authority in order for it to comply with any"
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36. We spoke earlier today a bout the cost of implementation of a lot of this—building incinerators and so on and the work associated with the removal of landfill. However, we have not spoken about the cost to local authorities of implementing the Bill. These days, we constantly have new regulations, new inspections and everything to worry about. The cost of implementing this in a local authority is considerable. We have two types of authority that will incur expense.
Each collection authority—as I mentioned earlier, in Essex we have 12 district councils—may have to have an employee to monitor the Bill. In Maldon District Council, for example, £40,000 of expenditure puts 1 per cent on the council tax. That shows the effect that the Bill might have locally. Essex County Council will probably have an expenditure of over £100,000 a year just on the implementation of the Bill. The Local Government Association has been doing sonic work nationally about how much the Bill will cost and we will have the full figures later. This is just for the implementation of the Bill, not building incinerators or minimising waste. Unfortunately, we are also taking people away from minimising waste and from looking at the ways in which we might implement the Bill, just to do the paperwork associated with it. We must take this into account.
The Minister spoke earlier today about a generous amount of money being put in the settlement for waste disposal. I can speak for the seven or eight authorities—the large counties surrounding London, representing about 10 million people. We have had an increase of about 3.7 per cent and we will have that for three or four years, because a great deal of dampening has been built into the settlement. Considering we have to pass forward to education something like 6 per cent, the councils around London will have council tax rises of probably between 15 and 20 per cent for the next three or four years. That is without investing any money in waste disposal.
In moving this amendment I am suggesting that some provision must be made for the day-to-day expenses that local authorities will incur in implementing this Bill. We spoke earlier about the potential costs of the Bill and we understand the reasons behind it, but someone really ought to give some serious consideration to the costs.
I hope that the Government will make full allowance in what is now called FSS—it has had all sorts of names over the years, but it is now the FSS grant to local authorities—for the cost of implementing this Bill in future settlements. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves: I support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in this little group. The noble Lord spoke widely about local government finance and the financial effects on local government of implementing this legislation—perhaps quite rightly, because this is the first time we have had an amendment that has addressed the issue of money, although the amendment itself is drawn rather more narrowly.
First, I support what the noble Lord said about the general financial implications of the Bill for local government. It would be very helpful if at some stage during our discussions—and I do not expect to have this immediately—the Government would tell us clearly what effects they expect it to have. It would be very helpful if the Minister could provide us with that information. It may be that the Government expect waste disposal authorities to absorb the costs of this in some way and are not expecting to make provision in whatever the local government support settlement is now called. If that is their view and intention, it would be helpful to understand that.
It would also be helpful to understand the implications for two-tier areas. We keep returning to the problems of two-tier areas, because this legislation is about waste disposal authorities, but to be successful it will have to have the full co-operation and assistance of waste collection authorities. I am not sure that the Government have fully understood that these are different tiers of authority. Although an increasing number of different co-operative and consultative arrangements are being developed in different areas to try to bring the two together, only an optimist would say that those arrangements were all working perfectly, or could be expected to work perfectly during the time when this Bill is being implemented. That is the first major point that has been raised.
These amendments are more narrowly drawn because they are about the costs of providing information into certain specific instances. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on tabling quite neat amendments that delete the penalties for not complying with the rules and replace them with resources in order to allow the authorities to comply with the rules. I do not expect the Government to accept that, but we must ask why these penalties are here.
GC 36
Local and public authorities generally have a vast number of duties laid upon them by legislation. It is not normal for specific penalties for non-compliance to be laid down in the legislation imposing those duties. There is a series of general ways in which citizens, the Government or whoever may take action against local authorities for not doing what the Government want them to do or what the legislation tells them to do, but it is not normal for detailed penalties of this kind to be attached to particular requirements. It is not clear to me why the Government feel it necessary to attach penalties in specific cases of duties to provide information which are not unusual or particularly onerous. Perhaps this is part of a growing tendency by the Government to want immediate powers to force people to do things even if they are not being very efficient in doing them. If that is the case, one increasingly asks why the Government do not take over the whole damn thing, close down elected local authorities and do it all themselves. There is a clear, specific question as to why these penalties are thought necessary in the Bill in this instance.
6 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I, too, support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. Those of us who have been in local government know all too well how authorities are saddled with legislation and duties placed on them by the Government with the assurance that the Government will see that they are properly financed. However, when the time comes, they are not properly financed and the cost is left with the council tax payers. There is no doubt that the burdens being placed on council tax payers, particularly in the South of England, are considerable. Those of us who pay council tax—and I presume that is all of us—know perfectly well that over the last years council tax in many areas has gone up by four and five times the rate of inflation. Of course, the Government get away with that as they have not imposed the tax directly, so the poor old local authorities get the blame for it.
As the Cabinet system spreads its awful tentacles around the country, we increasingly find that there is less accountability. You have nine people making all the dispositions and the rest of the members—there are 57 in my local authority—have nothing to do and are supernumerary. Any protest they make will be squashed by one group or the other and they will be silenced. Therefore, there are real difficulties of meeting costs in the local areas.
We have not discussed enforcement yet. It is difficult for an ordinary Member of this Committee to understand exactly how it will work and how the various complicated provisions will be enforced. Perhaps we should have some idea of that and of the costs of the enforcement. One could go on about that but I shall not do so tonight. No doubt other points will be raised later on.

GC 37
We come now to the question of penalties on local authorities. Who will pay those? Presumably there will be a system of fines so that local authorities, which are already under pressure, will be fined—goodness knows how much—for doing what the European Union and the Government want them to do. That will mean that their council tax payers will have to pay even more. What about penalising properly elected local authorities? Local authorities and governments will be fined for not doing what the bureaucrats, if I may put it that way, consider they should do.
The amendments are important and should be supported. This is the first Grand Committee that I have attended and I understand that we do not take votes in Grand Committee. What a pity. I believe that we would pass many amendments, particularly this one. I support the amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy the Committee that they are not necessary because he will do something about them.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I support my noble friend Lord Hanningfield and everything said in his support on these two amendments. It will be remarkable if the Minister can reassure the Committee on the financial front; it has never happened yet so I do not expect him to be able to satisfy us on that point.
At Second Reading in regard to penalties I said that my view of the penalties on local authorities was to fund the deficit position that the Government may find themselves in at the end of the period. That raised a hollow laugh at the time but it was not entirely an inappropriate comment. I certainly do not want to pick up on the way in which local authorities work. There was enough debate on that subject when the Local Government Bill went through in, I believe, 1999 but sadly, much of what we predicted is now coming true with what I would suggest is maligned effect. Those are basically sensible amendments and although I do not expect the Minister to satisfy my noble friend, I look forward to his response.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, correctly discerns that I am unlikely to be able to accept these amendments. They concern resources. but I repeat that in this spending round there has already been a significant allocation of resources. We also have the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund, which has approved 142 bids for a wide variety of projects—£76 million in all.
In addition, there are the PFI provisions that many of the capital projects will want to consider and there are other sources of funding. Thus, there is no problem of funding in relation to this scheme as a whole. However, we clearly need to keep that under review, as we and the Treasury shall, not least following the publication of the waste strategy that was produced the other week at the same time as the pre-Budget review. We shall need to reassess the funding implications of that.
GC 38
Funding is, however, an issue which the Government have to take on as one of their responsibilities to ensure that this is delivered. But in these amendments we are talking about compensation for running the scheme.
I find the amendments slightly odd in that they relate to waste collection authorities rather than waste disposal authorities, whereas all the obligations are on waste disposal authorities. There are no obligations in any direct or indirect sense on waste collection authorities. An issue may arise as to whether a two-tier system exists between the waste disposal authority, which has to meet the obligation, and the waste collection authority, which is judged not to be helping to meet those obligations. That then becomes a matter for joint determination rather than compensation from the Government for the costs of meeting the operation of the scheme.
Even in relation to the objectives which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, sought to achieve, the amendments are misconstrued in that one can only compensate for something that is being done to a disposal authority. It is not sensible to do that. The obligations are to meet targets which are not only a European and a government requirement; I believe that all parties recognise them as being desirable. Therefore, it is not sensible for the Government to undertake to compensate the cost of authorities administering a scheme to meet that outcome.
The penalties referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—other than those for exceeding targets—are imposed on the waste disposal authorities in order to act as an incentive to comply with the requirements. Overall, I believe that all political parties are committed to those requirements. Therefore, we are arguing only about means. Penalties are one way of ensuring that the delivery takes place. Obviously individual local authorities will try to avoid the penalties. That means that the penalties must be more substantial than the cost of compliance.
None of that requires compensation. It certainly does not require compensation to collection authorities; nor, in my judgment, does it require compensation to disposal authorities. I would therefore resist the overall idea of compensation. However, in any case, the amendments are directed at the wrong tier of authority.
Lord Hanningfield: I want to pursue the amendment a little further with the Minister. The collection authorities are very small and any increase in expenditure will place a considerable additional burden on them. The Local Government Association anticipates that it will have to keep records and that it will have to use some staff to help the disposal authorities to comply with the legislation. We do not believe that the collection authorities will get by without doing any work at all. The disposal authorities are far larger and will possibly have more resources, but the provision will have some impact on the collection authorities. For very small authorities, a small amount of expenditure can mean a I per cent rise in council tax.

GC 39
One problem that we have not discussed is that local government is keener than the Government on recycling and reducing waste. If we are not careful with the Bill, by minimising waste and by thinking of new ways to dispose of it, we shall take away resources from those who do such work. As an executive, the Local Government Association is involved, and I know of no authority that is not putting much effort into trying to do such work. The Bill will divert money away from that to keeping records and dealing in futures—in landfill coupons, as it were. The Government must recognise that in future settlements.
We had a settlement recently but its size meant a major redistribution of money. The 10 million people surrounding London—one of the most populated areas in the country—have suffered considerably. As I said earlier, we have received a settlement of only just over 3 per cent for all the 10 million people who surround London. That will certainly mean no investment there to implement the Bill for several years, because the settlement carries on through several years, through dampening of our resources. So that applies not just this year but for several years. I therefore cannot agree with the Minister that there is money for that—there certainly is not in the south of the country. The Government must recognise that there must be further government investment to implement the Bill and to help the whole waste strategy. Perhaps the Minister can give a few more answers, because we in local government cannot agree with the comments that he has just made.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the Minister does so, can I ask him again about enforcement? Clearly, someone will have to enforce the Bill's provisions. We should know how that is to be done. Will there be an inspectorate, or what? How much will that cost? What will its powers be?
The other point is that disposal authorities are often the same as the collection authorities. By fining a disposal authority in one way or another, we will be fining a collection authority as well. The fact is that, whoever and whatever it is, the cost will surely be placed on the back of the council tax payer.
Lord Greaves: I want to pursue two points that have arisen. First, the Minister said that lots of money has been provided in the recent settlement for local authorities. Is he saying that the costs of implementing the Bill were specifically taken account of in the recent local government settlement?
Secondly, I return to the question of penalties, which are referred to in both the clauses to which the amendments refer. Those are penalties for not providing information in certain circumstances, and are to be set out in regulations—part of the skeletal nature of the Bill. What penalties are envisaged, at
GC 40
least in England, for non-compliance or failure to carry out any provision of required information? What does the word "penalty" mean?
Lord Whitty: The next group of amendments deals in part with penalties for failure to provide information, as distinct from failure to meet the targets—although I shall have to check on that. The enforcement agency in this context will in England be the Environment Agency. The priorities of the Environment Agency, which are already geared to waste minimisation and dealing with waste, must be directed at the inspection and delivery of the Bill's provisions. The strategy implied by this Bill—indeed the overall waste strategy—lasts much longer than the current spending round or the current rate support grant settlement. There will be a longer term resource requirement but, in terms of the overall increase in allocation of resources to local authorities, waste strategy requirements form a significant part of the changed overall allocation, as they were in the allocation to DEFRA in the three-year spending review.
I also said earlier that we will need to consider whether there are any additional funding requirements as a result of the waste strategy issued a few weeks ago. In that context, we will need to consider whether there are any additional funding requirements for the delivery of that and other aspects of the strategy. It is not necessarily the end of the story on resources, but there is access to other forms of funding as well to deliver the capital side of the strategy.
The penalties will be specified in the regulations and they may be different for different situations. For example, the penalty for failure to provide information will be different from penalties for actions which, in effect, amount to fraud or to providing misleading information. There are precedents for those penalties.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. The two clauses that we are discussing refer to provision of information—for example, provision of information in relation to the inter-utilisation of allowances. The Minister said that penalties for that might be different from penalties for other failures. What kind of penalties are the Government considering imposing on waste disposal authorities if they fail to meet a deadline for information, or whatever?
Lord Whitty: The distinction that I was drawing was between sanctions for failure to meet the overall targets, which must clearly be substantial because they must be greater than the compliance costs to provide an incentive to comply, and penalties that relate to failure to provide information, fraud or whatever, where we have several possible precedents under various Acts for the kind of penalties necessary.
As I said, the next group of amendments deals in part with that and with the points made by the Delegated Powers Committee. It might be better if we

GC 41
dealt with that under that group of amendments. These amendments deal with the issue of resources rather than the issue of penalties.
Lord Greaves: I thank the Minister. The words that the amendment would remove from the Bill are those that,
"make provision for an authority to be liable to a penalty if it fails to comply with a requirement imposed on it of the kind mentioned in paragraph (f)".
The requirement in Clause 6(3)(f) is the requirement,
"to provide information in relation to their inter-year utilisation of allowances".
The provision in page 6 is similar, relating to the provision of information in relation to the acquisition and disposal of allowances.
Clearly it is necessary that waste disposal authorities provide a flow of information, without which the system would break down. However, that does not concern fraud or failure to meet huge targets—and therefore matters at the heart of the whole system, where authorities are penalised if they dispose of far too much waste or whatever. Those are bureaucratic tasks that rely on people carrying them out efficiently and providing information as required.
I submit that it is not normal in local government or in authorities generally for failure to comply with that bureaucratic task to meet penalties. Perhaps it is. I am trying to extract from the Minister what is meant by penalties. What kind of penalties might be thought appropriate to place upon a waste disposal authority that fails to provide such information by the due date? That is what we are talking about.
Lord Whitty: The Act provides for those penalties to be set down in regulation. We are now talking about the Environment Agency's enforcement strategy, for example. There are plenty of other regimes where failure to provide information leads to a penalty.
Whether we choose to mirror that exactly or to have a similar provision in the regulations is normally a matter for secondary, not primary, legislation. Today I am not in a position to give an indication of the level of penalties that we are talking about, but they would be similar to penalties for similar offences under equivalent regimes. There are examples of that in relation to local authorities, and in relation to private sector companies.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is an important point. If we are to hear the level of penalties only when the regulations are published, that will be too late. We shall not be able to do anything about them. The House of Commons certainly will not be able to amend the regulations even if they are of an affirmative nature. I do not know whether they will be negative or affirmative but, in any event, the House of Commons will not be able to amend them. The House of Lords may be able to delay them, but once they are in the regulations, Parliament can do nothing about them.
If the penalties are greater than we believe that they should be, we shall have no possibility to alter them. It is therefore essential—perhaps not at this stage but
GC 42
certainly at Report stage—that we should be given some indication of the penalties, and whether they are to be financial or otherwise. If they are to be other penalties, what kind of penalties will they be, and will there be any penalties on officials or counsellors for failure to carry out their duty? We know nothing about this matter, and it is not right that we should pass legislation that incurs penalties without knowing what the penalties are.
That is not a democratic way to proceed. Indeed, it is a very autocratic way to proceed. It is a danger to local authorities, to those who serve on them, and to those who serve them. We should not allow it. I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee that he will give us some indication at Report stage of the penalties intended, and upon whom they are to be levied.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord may consider that this is not democratic, but it is normal. This may not be the best argument in the world, but it is the usual way in which we pass Bills in this House, unless we are creating an entirely new offence. This is not an entirely new offence; it is failure to provide information required by the authorities, which has many precedents. Alternatively, it is fraud which is a criminal offence for which there are precedents. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, may find it offensive or inadequate, but it is the normal way that we present Bills to this House, most of which are passed without this degree of scrutiny and objection. That may be wrong, but it is normal.
We shall consider what we can do for later stages, but the overall picture is that we are dealing with this roughly, approximately and proportionately in line with the way in which we deal with matters under other regimes.
Lord Hanningfield: We have had an interesting discussion which went further than the amendments that I originally put down. We wanted the Minister to acknowledge that in the Bill there are some real costs to local authorities, but no provisions appear to have been made. We do not seem to have that acknowledgement. We were told that we have had good settlements, but there are real costs in implementing the Bill, which will come later. Therefore, I hope that the Government will give further thought to the issue. The debate has shown that that is needed. No doubt we shall discuss it further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 22, leave out from "by" to "a" in line 24.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of these amendments is to explore exactly what is meant by a particular aspect of Clause 6, which provides that:
"An allocating authority may by regulations make provision for a waste disposal authority in its area to utilise for a scheme year landfill allowances allocated to it for a different scheme year'.
We have heard about the penalties on the authorities, but subsection (3)(j) continues,
"make provision creating offences for breaches of provisions of regulations under subsection (1)".
Here we are talking about the individual. Subsection (4) says,
"In making provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(j), regulations under subsection (1) may provide for an offence—

(a) to be triable—

(i) only summarily, or

(ii) either summarily or on indictment;

(b) to be punishable—

(i) on summary conviction … or"—
very strangely, one might have thought—
"(ii) on conviction on indictment by imprisonment for a term not exceeding such period as is so stated (which may not exceed five years) or by a fine, or by both".
The amendments have two purposes. The first is to try to elicit from the Minister some explanation of what offence he thinks could be created in the trading of these allowances which would justify the penalty of five years' imprisonment, possibly with a fine. That is a very heavy sentence, which one would expect for major fraud or something of that nature. However, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about responsible local authorities and individuals within them who, generally speaking, are law-abiding and do their best to serve their community. I find it odd that we push this as far as on conviction, on indictment, up to five years in jail.
That gives rise to a separate issue that has nothing to do with the Bill. Prisons are overcrowded already and here we are creating yet another offence which we are not certain about and which is not specified, because we are back on this wretched business of flying blind as it is all to come in regulations. By creating yet another offence, we are creating even more prisoners to put into a system that cannot carry the ones that it has already. That will probably result in honest people being turned into criminals as a matter of custom and habit. Although they have committed an offence, they will almost certainly not be habitual criminals when they go to prison. There is too much experience that shows that many people who are put in prison and exposed for a long time to a permanent criminal environment become infected with what you might call an incurable disease.
The amendments are directed at two issues. One is to try to explore what there is in here to create an offence of such severity that it would warrant that particular form of punishment. Then there is the subsidiary issue of whether we really want to send people who have done this to prison when we cannot handle the prisoners we already have. That is a serious point that warrants some serious consideration. We shall probably need to return to it, but I look forward to what other Members and the Minister have to say. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: If no one else is going to speak, I shall support these amendments. I echo the
GC 44
sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith. It is beyond belief that we should be proposing a penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment or a fine of £20,000—or both. Damn it, you can get away with murder for less than that. A four-year penalty was imposed in a recent manslaughter case and here we are imposing a five-year sentence on indictment, as well as a fine of £20,000 for a breach of these regulations. That seems extremely high and punitive to the nth degree. What sort of society are we living in that we want to send people away for five years for breaching regulations? This is more like the Soviet Union than democratic Britain. We are doing this at a time when the prison population is projected to be 110,000 by 2009. Where on earth are we going to find all the prison places for the extra prisoners we are going to jail because they break some regulation under this Bill, which is implementing an EU directive? Where exactly are we going?
I am glad that I am not the Minister, because I would find it extremely difficult to justify this under any circumstances, but I suppose I had better sit down and let him try to do so.
Lord Hanningfield: I support these amendments. Whom does the Minister expect to go to prison? In local government circles this five-year prison sentence has made the Bill a bit of a joke. Who will go to prison from the local authority? Is it the leader? Or the chief executive? I suspect that that is not meant at all and it is meant to be someone who is trading criminally in this area. Perhaps the Minister might explain whom he expects to get these penalties, when everyone is trying to make certain we comply and do something about minimising waste and minimising landfill. I repeat, the provision has made the Bill a bit of a joke in a lot of circles. Is this the beginning of a new trend in legislation, under which we will all be sent to prison if we do not comply with the Government's ideas in local government? Perhaps it is a way of sorting out the future of local government.
Lord Whitty: I hasten to assure the noble Lord, the Leader of Essex County Council, that this is not a new relationship with local government. Nor is it really a threat to our prison populations. We are dealing with the regrettable fact that occasionally there is fraud in some aspects of local authority performance. The provision is for people who recklessly and knowingly provide false information in order to rig the market, in effect. That needs some fairly substantial penalties. The offences under these clauses involve that kind of fraud or near fraud. Operating as a broker in the market without a licence or in breach of a licence are the kind of offences we are talking about. We are not talking about inadvertently late or inaccurate information; we are talking about deliberate fraud.
I said earlier that when we came to this group of offences I would have some slight comfort for noble Lords who may be concerned about this, because the Delegated Powers Committee felt that the maximum penalties here were probably too draconian, important though the potential offences were. In further correspondence with the Delegated Powers

GC 45
Committee we have suggested that rather than these penalties we would be looking at the penalties provided in other circumstances where we are in effect transposing European Union law, where the maximum penalty would be imprisonment for no more than two years or punishable on summary conviction for more than three months or with a fine on level 5. That relates specifically to these offences. The lesser offences would relate to the normal Environment Agency regime.
I am not sure that this will entirely please my noble friend Lord Stoddart, but the Delegated Powers Committee has said that it would find the delegation to create offences acceptable if the levels for those offences I have just read out are those that would be applied under other equivalent legislation that was effectively a transposition of European directives. The Delegated Powers Committee accepts that that would be an appropriate maximum level of offences for these purposes as well. In that sense I am at least in part accepting the intent of these amendments. I am not deleting imprisonment entirely, but restricting the penalty, that could be applied for these offences. In that spirit I hope the noble Lord will not pursue these amendments as such, although we will return to this on Report with the Government's suggestions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Can I clarify what this means, because it is not entirely clear? Perhaps the Minister would expand on that a little.
Lord Whitty: As to what the fraud might consist of?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Quite.
Lord Whitty: For example, it might be trying to acquire for the local authority the achievement of a level of reduction of landfill that they had not actually achieved, which they could then trade—in other words, creating a fraudulent credit in a market for which they would then get some return. The person who did that would probably be the officer concerned rather than the leader or the chief executive, but it would be that kind of offence.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The debate has revealed the difficulties that are put into an administrative system once a trading element is inserted into what is otherwise a relatively straightforward operation, particularly when the trading is in something that is almost notional. As the Minister has implied, if you create a false market by issuing false returns you can prove almost anything. I agree that might well create an offence that is worthy of the sort of penalty described. You could avoid it even more easily by not permitting trading and you would not have the bother. That might solve it. It would certainly solve the problem of the prison population as well.
We will have to study the reply, which was designed to be helpful. I am grateful for that, but I do not know that we are entirely satisfied. We may need to return to the issue again. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 23 to 26 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Trading and other transfer of landfill allowances]:
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 34, after "allocated" insert "for the year in which the trade will be completed"
The noble Lord said: We think that unused allowances should be able to be carried forward and used by the waste disposal authority to which they were allocated. Transfers of allowances should concern only current year entitlements.
This is a probing amendment which will enable the Minister to explain a little more how it is envisaged that the trading of allowances will be carried on and, in particular, how it will be carried forward from prior years and borrowed from future years. It will give us a better understanding of how the trading will work.
We return to the matter of the substance of the Bill being in regulations and the difficulty caused by not having those regulations. Without some information from the Government, it is extremely difficult for ordinary, suspicious Members of the Committee—if I can describe myself as ordinary and suspicious at the same time—to envisage exactly how the system will work. Only the Minister can provide that. It would be interesting to know whether any pilot work has been carried out in relation to this issue and, if so, what happened. It would also be interesting to know whether a risk assessment has been done on the possibility of this blowing up in our faces.
If we devise a trading system that does not work, then we shall not help anyone. We have no way of judging whether or not what is being suggested will work. That is the purpose behind Amendments Nos. 27 and 29. Amendment No. 33 concerns a much narrower point. It probes whether the Bill as drafted would be a general ruling or whether it would be limited to specific trades or specific waste disposal authorities. It was tabled simply in order to elicit more information from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I support the amendment because it tightens up the description relating to the year in which trade is completed. It is a good probing amendment, which will help us to clarify the situation.
Amendment No. 29 seeks to leave out paragraphs (c) and (d). Instead, it inserts wording which relates to the transfer of unused landfill allowances and the transfer of allowances allocated—or those which are yet to be allocated—for any subsequent year. That would appear to limit flexibility but, in fact, it could also put the onus on poorly performing councils to sort themselves out. I should be very interested to hear the Minister's opinion on that.

GC 47
Amendment No. 33 seeks to leave out the words,
"or for specified scheme years",
and limits the provision to a specific scheme year. It encourages good practice but, at the same time, reduces some elements of flexibility. In general, we support the amendments but would like the Minister to comment on some of the aspects that I have mentioned.
Lord Whitty: The amendments attempt to restrict the scope of the new regulations so that they specify that trading can take place only in a specified year. That seems to cut across some of the arguments raised by Members of the Committee at an earlier stage when we tried to find ways of smoothing out the cost and the planning of schemes designed to meet these objectives. If you could only trade but could not bank, borrow or trade across the years, clearly it would be more difficult to smooth out those changes.
If, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggests there is a danger of the whole scheme not getting off the ground and it was seen by the majority of authorities as a problem if it was done outside a given year, it is possible that one would want to limit that. I doubt that. It is certainly not the Government's view that at this stage they should limit trading to within a particular year for the reasons that I have outlined. That would not give us scope to plan and to smooth our allocation of resources.
The intention of the clauses is to enable us to consult on the precise nature of the regulations. If the word came back from the local authorities that for reasons of safeness, so to speak, we should trade only within one year, clearly we would have to take that into account. That is not the general impression I have at the moment, and it is therefore not sensible for us to limit ourselves in primary legislation to that provision.
I am afraid I did not completely follow the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, on Amendment No. 29 which, as he says, would appear to introduce yet more flexibility in the same direction, although he did say that it may help failing authorities. I am not sure how that would arise. It would restrict trading and therefore restrict the ability of all authorities to give themselves some elbow room in order to meet the targets over the period, but not necessarily in a given year. That is what the trading scheme is designed to provide.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Can the Minister say in the situation that he has just described whether there is insufficient discipline in the legislation to meet the targets that are set? I know that that is particularly difficult because governments of all colours are reluctant to tie themselves down until the regulations are published and when they have had consultations, for example, with local authorities. I understand that, but there appears to be a blank cheque which might result in targets not being met.
Lord Whitty: No, the discipline will apply in the target years. There is a great deal of discipline built
GC 48
into this process, but in order to meet those targets we believe, in part, that a market solution is appropriate. It is a limited market, but one which would enable what would otherwise be step changes in performance to be smoothed out. That seems highly desirable in those circumstances. If local authorities can arrange matters between each other in order to achieve that, that is a sensible outcome. To restrict them at that stage, would seem unnecessarily inflexible.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. He is trying to be as helpful as he can be in the circumstances, and I am grateful to him for that. Since we are flying blind, that explanation must be helpful to us, but we shall have to study it seriously. As with all these explanations, there is a danger that one gives rise to further questions to which we shall need to return. At the present time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 5, line 34, leave out "or any other"
The noble Lord said: These are probing amendments. We appear to be envisaging a system where each allocating authority will have as one part of its strategy a reduction of waste from outside its area going to landfill in its area. But a waste disposal authority within the area will be able to trade allowances from another allocating authority—if we have understood the Bill correctly. That seems to be entirely permissible if we read the Bill with care. I cannot help wondering whether that is really what is intended.
Another potential problem is that we may have one area—let say England—operating one system and the Scots, because they have put part of the Bill through a different system, devising a second system and the Welsh devising a third. There is a risk that we could erode the integrity of the whole. The amendments are important from that point of view and I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation.
Amendment No. 31 makes
"provision for limiting the length of journeys to landfill sites made by local waste authorities".
This returns us to a problem that I discussed when debating an earlier amendment: waste being dumped where it is convenient for it to be dumped rather than where it ought to be. One waste manager explained that he assumed that scarce resources would result in higher trading prices—this is on the trading of quota. Hence, if Birmingham were to run out of landfill within 30 miles of the city, that landfill could become a scarce resource and Birmingham could then trade up. At the same time, the landfill operator would charge more.
The problem could reach the point where it was cheaper for Birmingham to sell its close quota, buy something more cheaply that was further away and take the rubbish another 20 miles, perhaps. The overall cost equation for that may work out favourably. We would not want that to happen, but given the realities of creating a market, it could.
Finally, Amendment No. 32 allows the allocating authority to suspend the transfer of allowances. Again, we do not know the circumstances under which the Secretary of State, who would be the allocating authority, might decide to do that. We know only that the power exists. Once again, this concerns timing. When will he do this? Why? How much notice will he give of the change? Will he be able to suspend all trading of all allowances, or is he likely to suspend trading only in futures allowances? Might he suspend trading in past allowances that are surplus because authorities have met their targets? All the amendments have been tabled to elicit further information. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: We support Amendment No. 28 because that tightens up the situation by removing the words, "or any other". However, we wonder about the purpose of Amendment No. 30, which would knock out allocating authorities and also specific scheme years, which seems to us to defeat some of the Bill's objectives.
I am worried about Amendment No. 31. I totally understand the environmental desirability of the short-distance necessity of going to a landfill site. However, in some parts of the United Kingdom, this situation does not apply at all. I refer, in particular, to Wales, where I come from. There, one county, which is a disposal authority, stretches over a distance equivalent to going from the Severn Bridge to the flyover just down the road here, and it has very few disposal sites within its boundaries. Frankly, what the amendment seeks to achieve would be impractical for that authority because of its sparse population and the small amount of material collected over a very wide area.
Therefore, the amendment would hit very hard in some parts of the country, and in some areas of Scotland that I also know well it would be particularly difficult. I have no doubt that the National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament would both make representations, and they would probably require far more flexibility so far as concerns the amendment. I understand that Amendment No. 32 is a probing amendment and we shall listen to what is said about it.
7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: In different ways, all the amendments are designed to limit trading and to reduce the flexibility that trading might deliver. Therefore, I have objections to all of them, although those objections differ.
Amendment No. 28 would prevent any cross-border trading of allowances. In other words, the Welsh, the Scottish and the English systems would each have to be watertight among themselves. In general, the Bill is designed to bring about a flexible system of trading allowances. Should all authorities introduce a trading scheme, the amendment would deny waste disposal authorities the flexibility to trade across borders. It may well be that the terms of the schemes would differ and that there would be difficulties in trading, but it does not seem sensible to limit that at this stage.
GC 50
As was the case earlier, certain misconceptions are repeated in this debate—that is, that we are trading allowances, not waste. Thus, there is no crossover between the fact that one might trade between a Welsh and an English authority or between distant authorities within England and the fact that physically one would be transferring any waste. Therefore, when we come to Amendment No. 31, which deals with miles and distances, as is the case now, it may be more economically attractive for an authority to use a landfill which is further away. The fact that there is a trading system does not alter those economics. While we may all deplore the environmental effects of that, it is not the Bill that puts the authorities into that position.
Amendment No. 32 would remove the power to suspend the transfer of allowances. Apart from confining the issue in terms of' time, Amendment No. 30 would also remove the power to make provision as to the originating authority in the scheme year for which allowances could he traded. Obviously both those amendments would not be necessary if Amendment No. 28, or something similar to it, were carried, preventing cross-border trade in the first place.
Our objective here is to promote the maximum degree of flexibility within an overall UK target. Although different allocating authorities—that is, different national governments—may establish different schemes, we do not believe it is sensible to provide a system which, in principle, restricts any exchange, transfer or trading between those authorities.
I repeat that none of what I have said suggests that the trading system will encourage the physical movement of waste throughout the United Kingdom. The trading system does not, of itself, have any impact on that. Because the whole point is to reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfill, it should reduce that. Therefore, for varying reasons, I hope that none of the amendments will be pursued.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. He has thrown a little more light on to what was otherwise a dark place, which is helpful. However, I am not sure that we know enough about how this will work. I suspect that we shall know how it does not work only when someone first goes to gaol for five years because he has found a way to bend the rules. Nevertheless, I am grateful for what has been said and we shall study it, but we may need to return to this matter at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 33 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 6, line 12, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—
"( ) make provision for all trades to be carried out by direct transfer or sale between waste disposal authorities;"—
The noble Lord said: As with everything in the Bill, again, we are somewhat puzzled. From the implications of the Bill, it appears that we shall have

GC 51
waste disposal allocation brokers, who presumably will be rather like brokers on the Stock Exchange. They will circularise authorities and try to find people who are in the happy position of doing rather well and having a surplus. They will try to buy that surplus and then go somewhere else and attempt to make a living selling it to someone less fortunate. That is how markets work.
I wonder whether that is an appropriate way to carry on. My experience suggests that the existing local authority networks work extremely well. I suspect that if my noble friend Lord Hanningfield found that his recycling and treatment plants in Essex were working extremely well so that he had surplus quota allocations available, he would have only to whisper it quietly on a dark night to a few colleagues. Then anyone who was unfortunately situated in the country would hear about it very quickly and one would not need the intervention of a broker at all.
The only reason for having a broker is that he is a market maker and may have a better idea of price. However, I cannot believe that my noble friend is so lacking in knowledge of what goes on that he would not realise that, if he had spare quota which someone else wanted, that would be something of value. Knowing his concerns for the council tax payers of Essex, I am absolutely sure that he would sell it for the highest possible price.
I find myself wondering whether we really need to include brokers in the Bill. Amendment No. 33A was tabled in order to remove brokers. Despite everything that has been said to the contrary, because one has to argue in these situations in order to elicit information, the market system has much to commend it but there is no need for a specialist broker.
Shortly we shall come to other amendments which suggest a different route, but my preferred route would be to leave the matter to the existing local government mechanisms. They would deal with it quickly and easily and at minimum cost to the whole system. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves: I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has just said. I have a general prejudice against brokers and people such as that. Perhaps the noble Lord does not share that prejudice. Nevertheless, it is refreshing to hear such views expressed by someone such as him. I regard them as being leeches on the back of everyone else who make large amounts of money without doing any real work—just shifting money, stocks and all the rest of it between other people. However, perhaps I am prejudiced about that.
We are not here talking about a market full of people who do not know each other. We are not talking of very many people at all; we are talking of local authorities and of waste disposal authorities, which form a relatively small subset of local authorities. We are talking about council officials who are part of a community. They meet each other; they
GC 52
talk to each other; they go to conferences; they are often friends with each other; and they talk to each other on the telephone.
I cannot understand why we need this new breed of waste disposal allowance brokers to enable someone in Lancashire to talk to someone in Essex, or someone in Merton to talk to someone in Kirklees, or wherever it happens to be, about whether they have surplus allowances and whether they want to sell them from one council to the other. That seems to be a fairly simple, straightforward process, unless there is some legal bureaucratic reason why it must all be done through highly legalistic documentation that ordinary council officials—or even ordinary council solicitors—cannot be expected to understand, so that we need a new specialist profession of waste disposal allowance brokers. I cannot understand that; it seems nonsense.
Is the Minister saying that these brokers will be a necessary part of the process—even if they are allowed to trade in such allowances and must be registered, accredited and put through some politically correct process involving equal opportunities and all the rest of it? Perhaps they will have to be checked against the police register; goodness knows what has to happen nowadays with everything. Is it being said that a council in Lancashire and a council in Essex will be unable to trade direct in the sensible way of ringing up to talk to people, getting the paperwork done by their solicitors and exchanging it, or will it be compulsory to go through this new profession?
Lord Whitty: I am deeply impressed by the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, of his noble successors' networking and marketing skills on behalf of Essex. No doubt Essex can take care of itself, as it can in so many other matters. It is clear that if his colleagues feel like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, there will not be many Liberal Democrat councils seeking the service of brokers. The question is whether we should allow them. No, they will not be compulsory. Local authorities may well find that direct dealing is best. We are trying to introduce some transparency and flexibility into the system and it may be that some authorities find that it is helpful to have an agent or a system whereby a specialism grows up as the trade grows.
We do not seek to prohibit that in the Bill, but if such a profession is created, we seek to regulate it. That would seem sensible in the public interest; that is all that the clauses are about. The provision makes clear that regulations would need to provide that such brokers were licensed and subject to regulations and conditions of the licence. To return to the issue of penalties, breach of those licence conditions would be an offence. It is not that Lancashire or Essex will be required to employ some sharp-suited broker from the City, to whom they clearly would not want to entrust their trading arrangements. However, a respectable trade may develop that gives greater transparency to the market.

GC 53
It is important to recognise that those brokers are brokers. They do not own allowances; only the authority owns the allowances. The brokers may simply be there to help the system work better. If so, they must be regulated.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Is the Minister saying that quick bucks can be made? I know that from the grain trade. is this a situation in which local authorities may be in competition with brokers for the money that could assist local authorities with some of their financial problems?
Lord Whitty: No, I am not saying that. I am saying that to maximise their benefit from the system local authorities may employ their own staff or, in the case of Essex, their leader, in such negotiations. On the other hand, they may employ someone else on a professional basis. We should not rule that out, but we should ensure that that person would be covered by regulations in the same way that local authority staff would be covered.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am almost persuaded, but not absolutely. It seems to me that we are creating a hazardous career for someone. We are not sure whether anyone will use such a person and it appears that he will have to turn to other employment in 2020, which is not ideal for any young man starting up in business. One would hope—I hope that the Minister agrees with this—that if this Bill is successful, by 2020 we shall have met all the commitments, and most of the Bill will become so much redundant paper. That would be highly desirable.
That may not be so. It may be that the Minister has inside knowledge and knows that someone is already working on a successor directive to squeeze a bit more juice out of the same orange. Once the movement to diminish waste gets under way, the developments will create their own momentum, and we shall probably go much further in the end than the directive requires. The problems are all in the initial years and that is welcome. I am grateful for the response, which we shall have to study. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 6, line 12, leave out "persons engaged" and insert "Regional Development Agencies"
The noble Lord said: I almost said that I would not move this group of amendments. They postulate a different way of dealing with the matter of a third party involved in trading. Perhaps the Minister will say whether a regional development agency is a "suitable body" to act as a broker. It would in some sense have an interest, but it would be a disinterested party as between one waste disposal authority and another. It would be interesting to know the Government's reaction to that.
Lord Whitty: I would not want to prevent the RDAs developing that role, although it is not a very obvious
GC 54
role for them in that the scheme is not confined by region any more than it is in allocating authorities for the whole of England. Some of the trading could be UK-wide. I do not know that the RDAs recommend themselves for this role, but I would not wish to prevent them acting as agents.
The clause also refers to the regulations relating to registrars, which is a somewhat different role. We envisage the Environment Agency acting as registrar for England, and probably Wales, although I cannot strictly speak for the Welsh authorities. The registrar's role would be to hold the definitive record. That is a rather different job and one that would not be appropriate for the RDAs.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am quite happy at this stage to withdraw my amendment. However, everything that is said and done in the Committee must be subject to the proviso that it will be studied and may promote further questions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 41 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Duty not to exceed allowances]:
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 7, line 2, at end insert—
"(1A) It shall be the duty of the waste disposal authorities to ensure that for any year after and including 2010, waste which has not been sorted at source and collected in such a manner as to enhance its recoverability through recycling and composting is not sent to landfills."
The noble Lord said: This brings us back to some of the fundamental aspects of the Bill. We are talking about biodegradable municipal waste. The Bill does not tackle the problems of reducing the amount of that waste at source. We can argue about where the source is. We suggest that there should be a duty on waste disposal authorities, in co-operation with waste collection authorities, to ensure that by a particular year—some people may consider our suggestion of 2010 to be too soon but we believe a year needs I o be set down—waste which has not been sorted at source and collected in such a manner as to enhance its recoverability through recycling and composting is not sent to landfills.
Unless we are collectively able to get to grips with the problems of separation at the source of collection, we will not get to grips with the problems of recovery and recycling. Failure to do so will mean that all the good intentions in the world in the Bill, all the financial penalties that are to be levied in the Bill, all the targets and levels of allowable waste in the Bill will come to nothing. We believe that it is reasonable and sensible to set a date by which waste must have gone through the basic process of separation and appropriate processing, whether it is recycling, composting or other processes—and it will be a combination of all of them. Unless the Government are prepared to set these targets, everything that is set down in the Bill will come to nought.
That is the purpose of the amendment. We believe that a timetable needs to be set by which waste collection authorities, waste disposal authorities and everybody else involved in the waste chain can work to eliminate any unsorted waste coming from households and commercial properties in the high streets of this country. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: It is attractive to support the amendment but, as it is worded, one could not do so. Of course, one wants to see as much waste as possible segregated and collected in a segregated manner. However, unless we introduce a penalty, if someone persists in not segregating it—or if there is no market for the segregated material—we all have difficulties.
Curiously enough, if the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, had stopped at recycling, I would have had no difficulty. However, once the word "composting" is put into the Bill I am afraid we have to raise a separate issue that is very relevant to the whole question of waste disposal. There is no doubt that a lot of people see composting as a potential means of removing a great deal of waste that goes to landfill and using it beneficially.
My question is just a little matter of biosecurity. We had huge problems over pig swill treated to a far higher temperature than exists in any composting system that I have yet heard of, which gave rise to the foot and mouth outbreak from which this country is only just beginning to recover. It was a huge cost. We hope we have the BSE problem under control. That involves sterilisation systems even more sophisticated than anything required for foot and mouth disease. This is the first chance there has been on the Bill to flag up a real concern that we need to think extremely seriously about composting systems if there is a risk that, through composting, another foot and mouth outbreak could be set off.
The current systems are an open door for trouble, so we need to be extremely careful when looking at them. I am not aware that people have given much thought to that issue up to now.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I just want to point out that our Amendment No. 82 specifically addresses what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has quite correctly said. We shall debate it later.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These two amendments would have the odd effect of allowing landfill only of waste that has been separated for recycling. Unseparated waste could not then be landfilled at all. We think that these two amendments seek a far greater separation than is possible.
As earlier discussions show, we agree that separation is good and minimisation of landfill is very good. We recognise that as a laudable aim. However, including the requirement in the Bill in this form is asking too much of the waste disposal authorities. The Bill deals with implementing the requirements under the Landfill Directive to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills and
GC 56
to provide an economic instrument that will help the waste disposal authorities achieve their obligations. Source separation is a way of securing a good quality of secondary resources, but it cannot be an end in itself unless there is a market for the resources. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is not here, because this is precisely the point he was making earlier. It has be to be given great consideration when looking at this issue.
We accept that this issue needs to be dealt with as part of a wider package of measures rather than linking it to this relatively narrow Bill. We support the idea. The Government's response to the Strategy Unit report will have something to say on this when we respond to it in the spring.
The issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith was to do with composting. I do not know whether he wishes me to deal with that now or, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said, return to it later.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Would it help if I said that I am quite happy that it should be dealt with only once? I feel that I should toss the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for the privilege but I am quite happy to deal with it on his amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the noble Lord and look forward to the rest of the debate.
Lord Greaves: I thank the Minister for her response. In defence of our amendments, I point out the words,
"in such a manner as to enhance its recoverability".
That does not mean that it all has to be recovered. That was written fairly carefully. The Minister says that is asking too much of landfill authorities. Our concern is that that is asking too much of the Government to provide the commitment, vision, leadership and finances that are necessary to do what we believe is required. We shall look forward eagerly to the Government's response to the Strategy Unit report. No doubt that will be debated.
We thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. for his comments on markets which are absolutely right. That again is an area where we believe that the Government should be more pro-active in intervening in the markets, where necessary, to support and to sustain markets that are necessary in order to sustain recycling. I thank him for raising the important issue of composting, to which we shall return later. We look forward to the Strategy Unit debate later in this Parliament. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 7, line 3, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (5),"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 44 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 and 51. Amendment No. 44 refers to a new subsection (5) which is proposed in Amendment No. 51. Several times today we have spoken about the problems of two-tier authorities. As I said earlier, in the east of England, 88 per cent of the public are served by two-tier authorities, and over 70 per cent of the whole land

GC 57
Mass of England is covered by two-tier authorities. One could have the collection authority wanting to thwart the disposal authority for political or other reasons. Therefore, the disposal authority could be at fault because of a matter that it could not control.
As has been discussed several times today, one feels that that should be rectified or recognised somewhere in the Bill, otherwise the members of the authorities could be fined or imprisoned for something that they did not do themselves. That is why we feel strongly that Amendment No. 51 should be accepted. That would recognise that sometimes the disposal authority could be at fault for no reason of its own. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I should say something about Amendment No. 62, which is in this group. The purpose of the amendment is to require collecting authorities to keep appropriate records. That will become essential. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield has already spoken about the potential liability of that. That may well require regulation so that the disposal authorities have accurate information as to what is going on, and more importantly, are able to supply accurate information onwards as they will be required to do. The amendment is fairly straightforward. Whether the Government are minded to accept it is another matter.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: We thoroughly support the amendment. I have a great deal of sympathy with the situation in England where more than one authority operates in an area. Fortunately we have sorted that out in Wales where we now have single-tier authorities, and as a result life is much simpler and more straightforward. Clearly, where there are two authorities, the difficulties that have been described occur. The amendment is well worthy of support, because it would sort out those matters and ensure that things do not go wrong.
Lord Whitty: I recognise the situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and others have referred. It is obviously important in all of this, as in the totality of the waste strategy, that where there is a two-tier authority structure, the waste disposal and waste collection authorities must work in partnership. However, the Landfill Directive and the allowances with which the Bill deals relate to the disposal authorities. So it must be the primary responsibility of the disposal authority to ensure that the amount sent for landfill does not exceed its allowance. Shrugging that off to one of the district authorities is not an appropriate sanction.
We will need to ensure that the delivery of the strategy is seen in a wider context than is provided in the Bill, so that it requires the waste disposal and waste collection authorities to act together and for there to be some horizontal agreements between the waste disposal authorities. The Strategy Unit report addresses that issue and sets out some options as to how that should be achieved.
However, in the context of the Bill, I do not think that the ability to transfer the cost of failure to meet a requirement to one or more of the district authorities
GC 58
is the appropriate method. Indeed, it could undermine the discipline on the disposal authority to act in accordance with the allowances limit. It could also provide an excuse, if one of the district authorities failed by a relatively small amount to deliver what had been the assumption about the collectable items of waste. That could then be used as justification for not meeting the target and for upping the precept or. that authority or other district authorities. That could remove the incentive for the waste disposal authorities to comply with their duty, and therefore undermine our ability to meet the European targets. I therefore do not think that is the way to proceed. Instead, we should encourage through other means the partnership between the districts and counties, in order to meet the overall waste strategy objectives.
Amendment No. 62 is confined to the question of provision of information by the collection authorities. I cannot really see what kind of information would be helpful, given that the operation of the sanction would apply to the disposal authority. However, I am willing to consider that to see whether there is anything that we need to cover in terms of information required of the districts in order to ensure that the full system works and that we have a full indication of how the strategy is going.
Without commitment, I will take that matter away and consider it, but I would resist any attempt to shove the sanction or the cost onto the district authority. The disposal authority must take the responsibility here.
Lord Hanningfield: One does not want to put the blame on the districts, but there is no doubt about the situation. I repeat that we have 12 districts in Essex, with varying degrees of recycling. Some are doing very well, but others are not doing well at all. I repeat that council tax can go up in leaps and bounds because of a very small amount of extra expenditure. Councils are often not willing to incur that extra expenditure on attaining high recycling targets. There are thus variable and patchy results from the district councils in our county.
We are working together—we have a consortium, which is working quite well—but, when it comes to it, district councils often will not put up their council tax. The county council sets aside a lot money in its council tax for waste disposal, but district councils often do not do it. Unless we have some kind of mechanism, I cannot see how we can force them to do it. We therefore may not meet the disposal targets required by the Government because of what district councils have done. I can see that that is a case for judicial review and all sorts of things. I cannot see disposal authorities accepting blame when the collection authorities have not co-operated or have not been able to co-operate in achieving the targets. Therefore, it surely has to be thought out a bit further in the Bill. Otherwise it just will not work across a lot of the country. A tremendous proportion of England is still covered by two-tier authorities and will be for many years to come, whatever happens. It is a problem. The Minister has to recognise that we have to find some

GC 59
mechanism in the Bill for getting the district councils to recognise their responsibility as the collection authorities.
Lord Greaves: I support what has just been said. About four hours ago I think the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to easy processes of setting up separation and kerbside collection schemes. I thought these were not easy processes at all. Although they may not be as capital-intensive as some of the work that has to be done by disposal authorities, they still require substantial investment and substantial input of skill and resources to be carried out effectively.
There seem to be two instances in which this scheme might break down because in two-tier areas, district councils, as collection authorities, are not delivering the goods. The first is where they do not get on with the county council, or are not co-operating or cannot agree or whatever—the sort of situation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. The second is where the collection authorities are only too willing to do what is required but simply have not got the resources to do it. The Minister says they can bid for things but that is no good if you do not win your bid, if you are competing against other people. There seems to be a potential source of great friction here between the two levels, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, rightly said.
The Government have to tell us, as part of the Bill, how they see such difficulties and conflicts being resolved. It is not a question of resolution where the two sides are working together and where the resources are there. It is a question of resolution where, for whatever reason, they cannot agree on what needs to be done and will not do it for that reason or where they agree on what is to be done but the resources simply are not there. To penalise the waste disposal authorities under those circumstances seems quite wrong. As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, it is a recipe for judicial review and goodness knows what else, unless some other mechanisms are put in place, unless perhaps the allocation authority is given a direct
GC 60
role in relation to the collection authorities as well as the disposal authorities. There is a serious potential problem here even if it happens in only a few places. The Government have to think about that and tell us how they intend to do it.
Lord Whitty: I have recognised that there is an issue here that I would prefer to see resolved in a rather wider context of establishing effective duties and responsibilities through partnership between the two tiers of authority. Indeed, the overall waste management strategy implies that there is a responsibility on the collection authorities as well as the disposal authorities to act in partnership to meet the objectives of the strategy. That will be reinforced with the work done by the Strategy Unit, which was published the other week. I have no doubt we will return to this. I am not sure that it is appropriate for a mechanism within the Bill but the issue clearly has to be resolved in the real world to deliver these targets. We will no doubt discuss it at a later stage and will see whether there are other ways to achieve what all noble Lords wish to see happen.
Lord Hanningfield: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that. It is the biggest potential flaw in the Bill. All of us at county or strategic level work as well as we can in forming partnerships but there are real problems, often in the size of district councils and the way that they can deliver, even if they want to. We will have to return to this one later. I thank the Minister for what he has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 not moved.]
Lord Whitty: This may be a convenient point at which to adjourn until 3.30 p.m. tomorrow.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): The Committee stands adjourned until tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at fourteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Fire Service Review
  Fire Service Review
  Firefighters: Rates of Pay
  Firefighters: Rates of Pay
  Glasgow: Fire Service
  Glasgow: Fire Service
  Challenge Fund Homes
  Challenge Fund Homes
  NMEC: Ministerial Responsibility
  NMEC: Ministerial Responsibility
  Electoral Modernisation Pilot Programme
  Electoral Modernisation Pilot Programme
  Afghanistan: ISAF
  Afghanistan: ISAF
  Viktar Ivashkevich
  Viktar Ivashkevich
  Offenders on Licence
  Offenders on Licence
  Communications Data Retention
  Communications Data Retention
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 28–29 November
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 28–29 November
  Yarl's Wood Detention Centre
  Yarl's Wood Detention Centre
  Scotland: Race Equality
  Scotland: Race Equality
  Turkish Air Bases
  Turkish Air Bases
  Animal Rights Activists: Protection of Medical Research Companies
  Animal Rights Activists: Protection of Medical Research Companies
  Rehab UK Tyne and Wear Brain Injury Centre
  Rehab UK Tyne and Wear Brain Injury Centre
  Small Accommodation Providers
  Small Accommodation Providers
  DCMS: Outside Consultants
  DCMS: Outside Consultants
  Common Land
  Common Land
  Northern Ireland: Public Administration Review
  Northern Ireland: Public Administration Review
  MPs' and Civil Servants' Pension Schemes: Survivor Benefits
  MPs' and Civil Servants' Pension Schemes: Survivor Benefits
  Northern Ireland Railway Heritage
  Northern Ireland Railway Heritage
  PEACE I Programme
  PEACE I Programme
  Afghanistan: ISAF
  Afghanistan: ISAF
  Fylingdales
  Fylingdales