Sitting of 19 December 2002

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

  CONTINGENCY FUND ACCOUNTS 2001–02
  Resolved,
  That there be laid before this House Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 2001–02, showing:—

  (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March 2002; and

  (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions That there be laid before this House a Return of the Memorandum of Reply from the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel on the First Report from the Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee, Session 2002–03.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Paul Goodman: What proposals she has to reform the common agricultural policy; and if she will make a statement. [86762]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The European Commission published proposals for reform of the CAP in July and we expect it to come forward with formal legislative proposals in January 2003. We support the Commission's general approach of market reform, the removal of the link between production and subsidies, and a shift in support towards wider rural development and agri-environment measures.
    Mr. Goodman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. She says she supports the general approach of the Commission. Will she take this opportunity to make it clear that the Government oppose the Commission's specific proposal to put a
    988
    ceiling on payments to individual holdings which would penalise British farmers? Will she make that commitment?
    Margaret Beckett: Yes, we made it plain from the outset, when the proposals were first announced, that we not only oppose the ceiling on the payments at the top and the franchise at the bottom, but have found, as the only member state with much experience of a modulation scheme—about which many people have reservations—that what made it work at all was a simple scheme that was fair to everyone and easily understood. That is what we are recommending to the Commission.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time seriously to consider the abolition of the CAP and its replacement with national regimes of agricultural policy? Is it not appropriate to examine now the fiscal implications across the EU of such an abolition?
    Margaret Beckett: I understand why my hon. Friend makes that point, but I cannot agree that it would be better to have national schemes. Indeed, one thing that has bedevilled our pursuit of reform is that every time someone says that we need to reform the CAP, those who do not want reform say, "Ah! You just want to return to a national scheme." With great respect, I shall not follow my hon. Friend down that road.
    Ms Julia Drown: Given the horrific impact of the CAP on some of the poorest people in the world, which arises because it does not allow them access to our markets and prevents them from having a proper reciprocal and fair agreement, are developing countries represented at every level at talks on CAP reform? If they are not, should they not be?
    Margaret Beckett: I understand why my hon. Friend makes that point, and I know that she is involved in much work on the issue. Developing countries do not per se have specific representation at such talks. In a sense, it is inevitable that they would not at this stage because the negotiations are between members that subscribe to the existing CAP. My hon. Friend is certainly right, however, that it is important for the wider interests—not least those of the EU as a whole—in and outside the agricultural sector to be taken into account.
    Mr. David Curry: Does the right hon. Lady accept that quite a large number of Agriculture Ministers, her colleagues and some significant voices in Brussels regard the mid-term review as a salvage operation, not a bold and radical reform? In particular, they regard the proposals to levy the production aid to farmers to benefit rural development as dead in the water. What steps does the right hon. Lady intend to take between now and the publication of the detailed plans and thereafter to ensure that there is still momentum behind the reforms, especially on the part of the French and Germans, who obviously have a key role to play?
    Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right that the French and Germans have a key

    989
    role to play. On the other matter that he raises, I take his point; I have heard people describe the present state of negotiations in that way. However, there is a large element of wishful thinking in that because those who least want reform are most eager to say that there will be no reform. For my part, I do not believe that the position has changed significantly except that we now have a firm ceiling on the budget. I certainly take the view that there is much interest in all member states in being able to do more, to do different things and to have less bureaucracy on rural development and the wider rural economy, and that I find encouraging.
    Mr. David Lidington: In view of the agreement reached primarily between the French and Germans at the recent summit, does the right hon. Lady still believe that it will be possible within the CAP ceilings to afford the transformation of the dairy regime and the move out of quotas, to which the Government are committed?
    Margaret Beckett: Yes, I do believe that that will still be possible. What is much more to the point, however, is that Commissioner Fischler believes that it is still possible. It will not be easy and is by no means certain, but it is certainly possible.
    Mr. Lidington: On a slightly different but CAP-related point, may I invite the Secretary of State to send a Christmas message to her French counterpart to say that the CAP depends crucially on mutual trust and the observance by all parties of the rules of a genuine common market, and that that trust will be seriously damaged if France persists with its plan to impose new controls on British lamb exports, which are due to come into force on 1 January? The French beef ban did tremendous harm to our livestock industry. The new controls would do the same. What representations is the right hon. Lady making?
    Margaret Beckett: For once, I am in entire agreement with the hon. Gentleman. He is right—[Interruption.] Peace and good will, on this at least. He is right that the beef ban did great harm to the livestock industry, and worse still, it damaged mutual confidence and trust within the European Union. That is never healthy in an organisation of member states. However, we continue in firm dialogue with the French and with the Commission about the beef ban, and we have continued to emphasise the fact that further unilateral action would be damaging to mutual trust and confidence.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there have been substantial moves. We continue to discuss with our French colleagues the proposal that came from their food standards agency some considerable time ago. There has been substantial change in the proposals that they now envisage, and those would apply not only to the British industry, but to the French industry. Needless to say, that is causing some reaction. The position is not as it was, but I share the hon. Gentleman's view that unilateral action is not good.

    Fish Stocks
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What encouragement she will give to fishing methods which do least damage to fish stocks. [86764]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): One of the Government's aims for reform of the common fisheries policy is the encouragement of sustainable fishing. UK and EU funding is available to encourage fishermen to adopt selective catching methods. The Under-Secretary my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) is currently representing the UK at the Fisheries Council, where we expect decisions to be taken this week on the future of the common fisheries policy. He will report to the House as soon as possible on the outcome of the Council.
    Mr. Blizzard: We all know that our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is doing his best in Brussels, but will my right hon. Friend send him this message: if we want to respect scientific advice in order to conserve fish stocks, and at the same time maximise fishermen's jobs, should we not protect environmentally sustainable methods of fishing, such as long-lining, from the severe restrictions being proposed? Long-liners do not devastate fish stocks, and it would make no sense to impose quota cuts right across the board.
    If we value the scientific advice of our own scientists at CEFAS—the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—should we not value the scientists themselves and support their case for equal pay with DEFRA staff?
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend knows that our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has worked hard with Fisheries Ministers in the devolved Administrations to develop an alternative approach that will secure cod recovery without the effect on the industry that would result from the Commission's proposals as they stand. I shall not enter into pay negotiations as part of this answer.
    Andrew George (St. Ives): If the Minister accepts that the proposals under consideration in the Fisheries Council today are of such severity that they will devastate the British fishing industry without necessarily saving the fish stocks, does he agree that we should stop this 11th-hour method of crisis management and move away from the blunderbuss of blanket effort and quota restrictions, in favour of regionalised management? Because of the severity of the crisis, should not Parliament be recalled next week so that we can consider the outcome of the Fisheries Council, which will have a devastating effect on many coastal communities and thousands of jobs around the coast?
    Alun Michael: We would certainly welcome an improvement in the way in which decisions are taken in these matters. The hon. Gentleman is aware how hard my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has worked on the matter. We are concerned about the proposals. We are hopeful that different proposals will emerge from the discussions this week, but obviously I cannot anticipate the outcome when the talks are still taking place. We

    991
    must have confidence in the ability of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to represent our national interest and the interests of British fishermen.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: The Minister will appreciate that past experience of dealing with sustainability issues must taint the way in which we look forward. Is he aware that Scottish fishermen who have implemented mesh sizes of 110 mm and 120 mm square mesh panels, voluntary tie-up schemes and decommissioning schemes have had all of that disregarded in the current crisis? They face the prospect of 40,000 job cuts in Scotland and the Government seem content to do nothing about it.
    Alun Michael: That is far from the case, and the hon. Gentleman should not trivialise the issue. He should be aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has worked very hard, with Scottish Ministers, to ensure that the best possible case is presented on behalf of the fishing industry in this country, including Scotland. I am sure that he will be working as hard as ever in the discussions that are taking place today.
    David Burnside: There are 2,000 jobs, 700 fishermen and 160 boats operating out of Kilkeel, Portavogie and Ardglass, and the Department has recognised that, through the voluntary help of the Northern Ireland fishing industry, cod stocks have increased and haddock stocks have tripled in recent years in the Irish sea. Will the Department give a commitment that in the current negotiations the British Government will not sign up to a deal that affects the 160 boats operating out of Northern Ireland ports, which will affect the jobs of those 700 fishermen or the 2,000 jobs in the fishing industry?
    Alun Michael: No one could give such an assurance before the end of the current negotiations. We have sought a different sort of package from the one that the Commission put before the Fisheries Council, and I hope that we shall see some movement. That is what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is negotiating on today, and possibly tomorrow as well. They are serious negotiations and we cannot anticipate the outcome until we get to the end of them.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Is it not the case, as the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) said, that the fleet that is fishing the most conservation-minded fishery in the whole of the European Union has been specifically targeted for destruction, despite the fact that haddock stocks are the highest since 1971? This is not a trivialisation. We want to know, in the next day or two, that Ministers who are meant to be representing that fishery will not sign the death warrant of the white fish fleet and the communities that depend on it around the coastline. That is the guarantee that we want from the Dispatch Box.
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman knows full well how passionately my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has defended the interests of our industry. He should recognise, for instance, that fishermen who already use fishing methods such as long-lining feel that they are
    992
    being penalised for problems that are not of their making. However, we were able to ensure that English long-liners were excluded from the cod spawning closure in spring 2001. That is an example of looking after our fishermen's interests. We also need to promote the recovery of stocks, because without an improvement in stocks, the industry's future is not sustainable. It is that balance that my hon. Friend will be seeking to persuade his ministerial colleagues to get right in the current negotiations.
    Mr. John Hayes: Scottish fishermen will not be convinced by the Minister's arguments about long-lining off the east coast of Scotland. It shows a certain lack of knowledge and a poor mastery of the brief, which I appreciate he is only looking after while his colleague debates in Europe.
    Does the Minister agree with the request that I put to him earlier for an urgent statement on these matters today? We need to know precisely the progress of discussions in Europe and what negotiating stance the Government are taking on these vital issues. On what are they prepared to stand their ground? If the Government do not stand their ground, the deal will be done, our fishing industry will be destroyed or at very least depleted in the name of the disastrous common fisheries policy, and the House—we have heard comments from all parties today—will not have a chance to scrutinise or debate the matter until it is too late. It will be a miserable and lonely Christmas for our fishing communities. The Minister owes them at least the assurance of a statement to give them some confidence that the Government care as much as we do about that industry.
    Alun Michael: It is disgraceful for the hon. Gentleman to imply that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is negotiating on the matter, is not doing everything that he can to look after the interests of the fishing industry in this country. He should also recognise that there is a genuine problem with stocks. We cannot jump ahead and give him information about proposals until we have seen them. We hope that different proposals will come forward. Of course, if we have that information, we will make it available to Opposition Members as quickly as we can, as well as to those on the Labour Benches who are interested in the matter. We still hope that different proposals will come forward.

    Air Pollution (Water Treatment Works)
    Linda Gilroy: If she will make a statement on enforcement powers available to local authorities to deal with air pollution from water treatment works. [86765]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): There are a few difficult cases that the current arrangements cannot deal with, so I am launching a consultation on proposals for the statutory control of odour and other nuisances from sewage treatment works in England. I will also consult colleagues in Wales on whether the changes should also apply there. Enforcement powers for local authorities to deal with odour nuisance from those sources will be a key proposal in the consultation.

    993
    We intend to publish the document next week, and copies will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses.
    Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will understand that no one will appreciate it more than the residents of Cattedown in my constituency and Nigel West and his colleagues in Plymouth city council, who have been doing so much since January, when they discovered that they did not have the enforcement powers that they thought they had. Will he take particular note of the views that I am sure they will express during the consultation and agree to meet a small delegation to ensure that, as they have suffered so much in recent years, their voices can be heard?
    Alun Michael: I am well aware of the situation in Cattedown in my hon. Friend's constituency, not least because she has ensured on a number of occasions that I am aware of the problem faced by local people. Indeed, it is her representations and those of other hon. Members that have led to the consultation. I would be very happy to meet a delegation, which would obviously allow those involved to comment on the consultation paper. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy as soon as possible.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: The Minister's commitment to legislate will be very warmly welcomed by thousands of my constituents who live down wind of the large Thames Water water treatment plant in south-west London. Will he call in Thames Water and the other polluters to impress upon them the need to invest now in odour control to prevent them being dragged before the courts in a few years time?
    Alun Michael: I have had representations on that particular case and I look forward to hearing comments on the consultation document from the local area. The problem needs to be dealt with. In the meantime, it is important that those involved get on with trying to find a solution for the effect on local areas.
    Ann Keen: I also welcome the Minister's remarks on the consultation document. In Brentford and Isleworth, the Mogden sewage treatment works causes problems that I have brought to his attention on previous occasions. I was in the area on Sunday, and even on a December day the odour was unacceptable, although nothing like as strong as in the summer. The quality of life for my constituents in the area, especially because of the mosquito problem that arose throughout the summer, is unacceptable, and I would welcome anything that will improve it for them.
    Alun Michael: Again, my hon. Friend has spoken to me about the particular problems at Mogden and I am happy to do all I can to encourage a resolution of the issue. There is no reason for the company involved—in this case, Thames Water—not to seek a solution. It does not need to wait for enforcement powers to be introduced. The need for the enforcement powers on which we are consulting arises from one or two issues such as those that my hon. Friend has drawn to my
    994
    attention. They seem to have been going on for a considerable time without a solution being found or reassurance being given to local people.

    Cattle Passport Scheme
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If she will make a statement on the operation of the cattle passport scheme. [86767]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): The cattle passport scheme has been in operation for more than six years, and the national cattle database contains details of the 9.4 million animals that make up the national herd. We are currently investing a further £12 million in upgrading the system and improving its performance.
    Mr. Swayne: I am told that Royal Mail loses approximately 1 million letters a week, but surely they cannot all be the tear-off slips for the cattle passport scheme. However, that appears to be the experience of many of my constituents. How many slips have allegedly gone missing? Why does the Department continue to issue the passport documents by second-class post when the only safe method of sending them is apparently by recorded delivery?
    Alun Michael: The cattle tracing scheme has pioneered the use of e-mail and the web for cattle keepers who deal with the Government. Up to half of cattle movements and approximately one third of birth registrations are now reported electronically. The hon. Gentleman should not make assumptions about the loss of information, which is registered immediately on arrival.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: The Minister will recognise the effects of restricting cattle movements on cattle markets throughout the country. Will he give a positive Christmas message to my constituent, Mr. Jim Rowe of Axminster market auctioneers, about when the 20-day standstill rule on stock movement will be lifted?
    Alun Michael: We have indicated that we are considering the matter. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the standstill regime exists because of the veterinary risk assessment and the advice on what is needed to protect the industry.

    Bovine TB (Gloucestershire)
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If she will make a statement on the incidence of bovine TB in Gloucestershire. [86768]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Provisional statistics show that of the 1,549 cattle herds registered in Gloucestershire, some 15 per cent.—that is, 233 herds—had a new TB incident between 1 January and 30 November 2002. That includes confirmed, unconfirmed and unclassified cases.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. However, when I spoke to the National

    995
    Farmers Union a few minutes ago, it was fearful that resources for the state veterinary service would be reduced. Is that the case? If so, the process of testing animals will slow down.
    What is the Government's policy towards vaccination and developing vaccines? Will the Secretary of State encourage companies to develop them?
    Margaret Beckett: I am not aware of the rumours to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Indeed, 20 additional staff have been made available for TB testing in the Gloucester animal health divisional office area through the extra moneys that we gave the state veterinary service in England and Wales earlier this year.
    We are doing what we can to encourage people to work on, and ascertain whether we can develop, a vaccine. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that a general review of overall science research capacity is taking place. Clearly, the serious problems of the disease will be considered in that context.
    Diana Organ: In developing an effective policy against bovine TB, the Government set up the Krebs trials. Will my right hon. Friend give us some information on their progress? Are they taking place on all 30 sites? Given that they started in April 1998, when does she expect a report on them?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right that the trial started in April 1998. However, she knows that there was a problem during the foot-and-mouth epidemic. The trial is broadly on course, but I cannot give her a date off the top of my head for when we expect to receive the full outcome of the research. We understand the difficulties and anxieties, and we believe that it is right to let the trial run its proper course. Otherwise, we will never have an answer, and groups with opposing views will continue to accuse each other of getting it wrong.
    Mr. James Gray: Does the Secretary of State accept the principle, or at least the possibility, that the very existence of the Krebs trials in Gloucestershire may to some degree be responsible for the higher incidence of TB in that county and in neighbouring Wiltshire? If she accepts that possibility, does she also accept that those farmers who find themselves in a Krebs trial area have a greater claim to consequential compensation for milk loss than do farmers in non-Krebs areas? If she does not accept it, will she explain why farmers in the Whitminster area of Gloucestershire receive consequential compensation for milk loss even though that is not the case in other Krebs areas? Once again, will she reconsider whether there is an argument for consequential loss payments to farmers in Krebs areas?
    Margaret Beckett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I simply say to him that the Krebs trial was set up because the subject is bedevilled by suspicion, anecdotal evidence and perfectly understandable concerns for the health of animals and human beings. Of course I accept that people in the Krebs trial areas feel that they are being disadvantaged, but until we have the outcome of those trials nobody will really know what the methods
    996
    of transmission are and how they would be affected. Consequently, his further question on what might be due to people who find themselves in those circumstances clearly cannot be dealt with. The key thing is to try to get the trials finished and get some outcome. Otherwise, we will go on like this for the next 20 years.

    Hunting with Hounds
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent assessment she has made of the impact that a ban on hunting with hounds would have on farming and the countryside. [86769]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): The Burns report, published in June 2000, concluded that hunting, as an economic activity, is so small as to be almost invisible in terms of national aggregates. The Bill that I have introduced is based on principle and will depend on the decisions of the independent registrar and tribunal.
    Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to receive that reply. The Minister is obviously trying to strike a fine balance between maintaining a form of pest control through the Bill and maintaining the level of the quarried species in their natural habitat. He will be aware that Vale of York is virtually unique in having about 10 different hunts across its terrain, most of which hunt in part on upland farm land. Does that mean that he can give me a guarantee today that each of those hunts will continue under his Bill?
    Alun Michael: Of course not, because cases have to be considered against the criteria. We want legislation that is tough but fair and which deals with the issue of cruelty and recognises the activities that are necessary—the test of necessity is set out clearly in the Bill—for eradicating pests and protecting livestock, crops and so on.
    Paddy Tipping: Does my right hon. Friend accept that farmers and land managers take conservation and landscaping steps that are an enhancement for game and fish stocks? Will he make it absolutely clear that he and his colleagues have no plans to ban shooting or fishing?
    Alun Michael: I can confirm that absolutely, and my hon. Friend is right to point to the steps that are undertaken for the conservation of the environment. What really makes a difference is how we are assisting farmers through the England rural development programme and the agri-environmental schemes that are part of it. That is very much a part of the future in ensuring that we have the right biodiversity in our countryside.
    Mr. David Heath: During the debate the other day, the right hon. Gentleman recognised that if there is a ban on the hunts or a reduction in their number, it will cause particular problems for disposal of fallen stock. Does he recognise that there is a problem, irrespective of whether the hunting ban is introduced, that will be exacerbated by the on-farm burial regulations? Will he introduce the

    997
    proposals, which I gather his Department is working on, so that we have at the earliest opportunity a proper solution to the problem of disposal of fallen stock?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that there will be a change in respect of fallen stock, irrespective of the decisions that are taken on the Hunting Bill. It is a real problem that needs to be addressed. On-farm burial will not be an option in future. I can confirm that a great deal of work is going on. Again, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), has taken a leading part in discussing with the industries—disposal and farming—the best way to achieve a comprehensive solution to the problem that the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it not the case that hunts cannot always control their hounds? Hounds following a scent disrupt riding schools, and disturb farm animals and people in their gardens. Would a ban not help in that regard?
    Alun Michael: That is one of the issues that needs to be discussed in what I am sure will be an interesting debate in Committee over the next few weeks.
    Bob Spink: A Countryside Agency report shows that the countryside is in enormous economic and social difficulty. Will the Minister not show a little Christmas good will to people living in the countryside by stopping the nonsense of the hunting legislation and concentrating on what we should be doing—tackling the £25 billion pensions tax and the problem of street crime?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is right about one thing. The most important issues for rural people are incomes, jobs, health, education and all the other matters to which we devote most of our time in the Department. DEFRA was established to tackle such problems. Hunting is a very small part of the issue for the countryside. Not everyone wants hunting to continue; many country people want a ban. The emphasis should be on the matters that I just mentioned. It is Members of Parliament, on both the pro-hunting and the anti-hunting side, who made hunting such an important issue that the Government made a commitment to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion—which it will do.

    Horticulture
    Hugh Robertson: If she will make a statement on Government policy on horticulture. [86771]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Government welcome the contribution of horticulture to the UK economy, which is worth some £2 billion at the farm gate and supports substantial downstream activity in packhouses, processing and the garden industry. We will continue to work with the industry through the sustainable farming and food
    998
    strategy published on 12 December, by funding research and development and through the England rural development programme.
    Hugh Robertson: The Minister will know—not least because DEFRA gave me the figures—that a staggering 10.8 per cent. of the national orchard has been lost in the last three years. That is before the effects of this year's Agricultural Wages Board settlement are taken into account. What specific help is the Minister giving fruit farmers now; and, equally important, what is his long-term vision of the future of horticulture?
    Mr. Meacher: I have already answered the last part of that question. We intend, through the newly announced farming and food strategy, to give substantial help to the horticulture sector, which, as I said, is worth about £2 billion.
    The hon. Gentleman knows very well that funding to promote specific United Kingdom products is not permitted by European Union state aid rules. The industry, however, receives substantial help to increase competitiveness through research, which I believe is currently worth about £10 million a year. That has helped the development of, for instance, new apple varieties such as Meridian and to increase apple storage, which is a problem in northern Europe. I believe that 73 producer organisations are working in this country under the EU fruit and vegetable regime.
    We are keen to work with the industry, as long as that is compatible with EU rules, to promote what we regard as a very important and viable industry.

    Climate Change (Air Travel)
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What estimate she has made of the environmental impact of the projected expansion of air travel with special reference to climate change; and if she will make a statement. [86772]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The intergovernmental panel on climate change has estimated that, if current rates of growth are maintained, air travel and air transport could be responsible for between 3 and 15 per cent. of manmade forcing of the global climate by 2050. There is a growing view that the aviation industry, like other industries, needs to pay for the environmental damage that it causes.
    Mr. Mullin: My right hon. Friend has obviously noticed that the aviation industry appears to have plans for indefinite expansion. Has she also noticed that the Department for Transport appears to go along with those plans? Has her Department been consulted, and if so what response has it given?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the airline industry, like any other industry, is understandably trying to grow. He is also right to draw attention to growing concern about the potential impact. However, I do not think it fair to my right hon. Friend the

    999
    Secretary of State for Transport to say that the Department appears to be considering unrestrained growth.
    It is always important for a Government to maintain a balance between identifying what may happen and considering what decisions they need to take as a result, and considering what ought to happen. I can only say that, as ever, we are engaged in dialogue about the possible impact, not only within our own Government but in the EU and with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, where continuing discussions are taking place.
    Mr. George Osborne: Dialogue is all very well, but if future expansion is to take place we need to know the impact of major airport expansion not just on the global environment, but on the local environment, which concerns people in my constituency who live at the end of the runways at Manchester airport. As her Department sponsors such projects, will the Secretary of State undertake research into the environmental damage that aircraft cause?
    Margaret Beckett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that he will appreciate that such damage is difficult to assess. We hope to be successful in reducing other sources of pollution through other measures. If so, pollution from aviation will play a larger part. However, that is not easy to assess, which is why it was not included in the Kyoto protocol agreement. We shall have to consider the problem carefully, but there will not be any easy, quick answers.
    Norman Baker: Is not the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) right when he says that the Department for Transport is planning for a massive expansion of the airline industry, and caves in to every demand that it makes? Does not that have massive environmental implications, such as the doubling of carbon emissions between 1990 and 2010, and a further take-off after that? Is not the reality that the right hon. Lady's Department, however well meaning, has no power within Government these days, and the Department for Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry do what they want irrespective of the impact on the environment? Is it not time she had a word with the Prime Minister to put the environment back at the heart of Government?
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should do more to assess the environmental impact of aviation, but there is no easy, separate assessment that we can make. All I can say to him is what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. Neither the Department for Transport nor the Government as a whole are indifferent to these issues. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we recognise that this is a difficult issue to which no one, especially not the Liberal Democrats, has any easy answers.
    Mr. Mark Field: In the right hon. Lady's discussions with the Secretary of State for Transport, will she stress the importance of examining the cumulative impact on the environment, especially of the proposed third runway at Heathrow?
    Margaret Beckett: As I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is engaged in a long and thorough consultation process. He is mindful, as I am, of the varying effects that these decisions have on the environment. As both Conservative Members have observed, there is an impact on the local environment as well as the international effects.

    Sugar Beet Quota
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When she next expects to meet sugar beet growers to discuss quota arrangements for next year's harvest. [86775]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Ministers have regular meetings with the National Farmers Union, which represents sugar beet growers in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bellingham: As a friend of beet growers in East Anglia, the Minister knows how vital sugar beet is to the rural economy of the region. It is about the only crop that is currently making a profit. Does he share my concern about "everything but arms" and the fact that Britain is not self-sufficient in sugar production? There is a real fear that our quota will be cut in the future. What hope can he give farmers in my constituency this Christmas that there is a future for sugar beet? What is he doing to encourage biocrops?
    Mr. Meacher: I give the hon. Gentleman credit for the fact that he has been active on behalf of the significant number of sugar beet growers in his constituency. As he must certainly know, there has been a recent cut in the quota for the current year, which was enforced by the European Union to avoid breaching the World Trade Organisation ceilings on subsidised sugar exports. I appreciate the considerable problems that that causes for sugar beet growers. They are likely to have had some indication of the cut in advance, but the procedure for making quota cuts in year, after the beet has been planted, is one aspect of the UK sugar regime that we want reformed. That would be of considerable benefit to growers in this country.
    As for biocrops, I am extremely keen to see the development of biodiesel and bioethanol. The Government have already cut biodiesel and bioethanol prices by 20p a litre. I am well aware of the industry's argument that a little further cut in duty is necessary to achieve a viable industry, and we are considering that.
    Mr. Peter Pike: While it is important to do what we can to encourage the use of biofuels because that is the direction to move in, is it not a fact that the sugar cane and sugar beet industry throughout the world is being destroyed because of the very low price that enables Brazil to dominate the entire world market?
    Mr. Meacher: It is true that Brazil is the leading sugar beet grower, and that it dominates world markets. Of course, a case is currently being brought by Australia and Brazil under World Trade Organisation rules. In terms of any reform that does take place, it is certainly important to bear in mind the fact that the intervention price is three to four times the price of sugar on world

    1001
    markets, so reform is inevitable. However, we must take great care to ensure that the benefit accrues not mainly to Brazil, but to the smaller African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Under the "everything but arms" agreement, which some wag described as the "everything but farms" agreement, and according to the generalised system of preferences and the arrangements in the Cotonou partnership agreement, we have to make sure that the ACP countries—there are 77, some of which number among the poorest in the world—are the ones that gain. That is an objective of British negotiations.

    Household Rubbish (Recycling)
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What steps she is taking to increase the percentage of household rubbish which is recycled. [86777]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The statutory targets that we have set require local authorities to double their levels of recycling and composting by 2003–04, and to treble them by 2005–06, compared with 1998–99 levels. Alongside the targets, a number of funds are available to support local authorities. The national waste minimisation and recycling fund has just approved the distribution of £76 million to 142 successful authorities, and private finance initiative funding continues to provide the necessary resources to enable long-term dramatic increases in recycling.
    Mrs. Campbell: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to recycling, and in particular the waste minimisation scheme's grant to Cambridgeshire county council to assist in its efforts. However, I ask him to look carefully at some of the recycling schemes run by local councils, and particularly that of the Liberal Democrat-controlled Cambridge city council. Although it is spending £250,000 more through the use of a kerbside recycling scheme, it is actually recycling 1 per cent. less household rubbish than did the previous Labour administration in 1998–99.
    Mr. Meacher: I note my hon. Friend's point, and considering that the Liberal Democrats pride themselves on their performance in this area, I hope that they take it very much to heart. The Government are providing substantial extra resources, but there has to be value for money, which must be measured against outcomes. I am absolutely determined that all local authorities will meet those statutory recycling targets. We will want regular reports from those that are not on track, and we will take the necessary action to ensure that they come back on track.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is quite right to emphasise that the Government are giving huge encouragement to the recycling of domestic waste and refuse, and my own Macclesfield borough council has been recognised for its fantastic success and progress in this area. However, why has my council advised me that the assistance that the Government have indeed being giving to it—I am very grateful for that—is apparently being reduced or cut altogether? That will
    1002
    prevent it from continuing with the project, and from continuing to achieve the success that the Government have recognised.
    Mr. Meacher: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, as the main financial assistance to local authorities comes not from the £140 million waste minimisation and recycling fund, to which I have just referred, but from the environmental protection and cultural services category of the revenue support grant. From the baseline figure in spending review 2000, in the current year there has been an increase to £1.1 billion in the money given to local authorities. I am therefore puzzled as to why Macclesfield council should feel that there has been a reduction in the money that it gets, when in fact there has been a very substantial increase. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the money is not ring-fenced, and it is for the local authority to decide spending priorities. If, at the end of the year, it finds that there is less money available, I suspect that that will be because more of the money has been transferred for use on other purposes. The responsibility does not lie with the Government.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the value of school recycling schemes? In my constituency, a small company called Broughshire Ltd. has initiated schemes with many schools. The schools get income, pupils learn the value of recycling, and there is a small contribution to local employment. I hope that the scheme will be recognised by my right hon. Friend's Department. What does he think will be the impact of the pre-Budget statement on the whole recycling sector?
    Mr. Meacher: The pre-Budget report made use of information in the Cabinet Office strategy unit report published just before it, and certainly provides extra resources for the recycling sector. A range of mechanisms exist that should help local authorities. I place great value on schools recycling. It has educative value for the younger generation, who often are rather better than their elders at understanding what needs to be done. Also, schools can play a significant role, as the statutory recycling targets will require all local authorities to engage in kerbside collection. Schools can play a leading part there, and I shall do everything that I can to encourage that.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is the increase in landfill tax just another stealth tax, or will it be used to promote the environmental objective of local recycling? If the latter is the case, will the increase in tax be passed to beleaguered local authorities so that they can fund the 100 per cent. collection of separated waste, the promotion of local recycling and the expansion of clean and safe local energy-from-waste plants?
    Mr. Meacher: The substantial increase in landfill tax—a near tripling from £13 to £35 per tonne—is essential if we are to achieve our landfill directive targets. I never cease reminding people of the facts: at the current rate, we will double our landfill every 20 to 25 years, yet our very tough target is to reduce that rate by two-thirds in the next 14 years. The increase in landfill tax is an essential mechanism if we are to achieve

    1003
    that target, as is the Bill introducing landfill permits as a way of reducing the amount of landfilling done by each authority, organisation or company.
    The hon. Gentleman wants to know whether that money will go back to local authorities. A ministerial team is following up the pre-Budget report and will examine all the details. I fully understand the purpose behind the question, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I am quite sympathetic, but there has to be agreement across Government on what is a key issue.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend is known for his interest in recycling, on which he has done some good work. May I urge him to stand up against the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury? If it comes into effect as intended, the pre-Budget report will be a disaster for all recycling and environmental initiatives. The landfill tax credit, which puts category C waste into the public sector, will mean that the environmental innovations sector will face a loss of £400 million. Will my right hon. Friend fight his colleagues tooth and nail to ensure that that money remains available to recycling and environmental innovation?
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend has already pressed his point with me very vigorously and I entirely understand it. He is aware that the environmental, social and community categories of the landfill tax credit scheme will be fully preserved, at £47 million. With regard to the rest, the problem remains that there have been allegations of dodginess. I am not sure whether that is a parliamentary term, so I shall say instead that there has been uncertainty about the legality of some of the allocations. I am not saying that they are correct but there is a widespread view that the way in which some of the money is distributed may not stand up to examination, as has been said in the media. More importantly, it is crucial that the money be primarily used for the Government's central aim of improving the weakest part of the system, that of local authority infrastructure and recycling—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Minister allow me to call Question 13?

    Rural Payments Agency
    Mr. James Plaskitt: If she will make a statement on the operation of the Rural Payments Agency. [86778]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): The annual report of the Rural Payments Agency published in October 2002 presents an unqualified set of accounts and the achievement of 16 out of 18 key performance targets. It is also worth noting that the agency has recently achieved the quickest ever start to the payment of the arable area payment scheme claims in England. Some 86 per cent. of claims were made within two weeks of the start of the payment window, amounting to £681 million paid to farmers.
    Mr. Plaskitt: Farmers in Warwickshire are reporting to me that payments are coming through much more
    1004
    quickly, for which they are grateful. Can we go further and consider greater co-ordination between different databases in the Department, perhaps even merging some of them so that we can facilitate more filing by e-systems and less by paper?
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is quite right, and a great deal of work is going on towards that end. The support for electronic submission of 2003 IACS—integrated administration and control system—claim forms has been enhanced, and applicants will be able to work of line before submitting their claims. I have no doubt that that will help to improve matters.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger. Not here.
    Alun Michael: It is obvious that some people have left for Christmas early this year.

    Wessex Water (Low Flows)
    Mr. Robert Key: Whether the Environment Agency and Wessex Water have signed the detailed operating agreement on restoring low flows in the River Wylye, River Piddle and the upper Bristol Avon. [86782]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): In June of this year the Environment Agency, English Nature, the Office of Water Services and Wessex Water agreed a programme of measures on restoring low flows in the Rivers Wylye, Piddle and the upper Bristol Avon. Since the programme of measures was agreed, Wessex Water has been operating in accordance with that agreement. I understand that the text of a detailed operating agreement covering this work has been agreed between the Environment Agency and Wessex Water and will be signed shortly.
    Mr. Key: So it has not been signed yet. Has the Minister received the report that was promised in the statement of intent to which he has just referred and which was due to be delivered to his Department in December 2002? I invite him to get tough, because this is one of the most precious chalk streams in Europe. It is a candidate special area of conservation, a site of special scientific interest with a wildlife trust area, and only last week there was a discharge of raw sewage into the river. It is one step forward and two steps back. This simply will not do—the agreement must be signed, sealed and delivered.
    Alun Michael: As I understand it, following the statement of intent, Wessex Water has been operating in the spirit of the agreement. Of course I will look at the particular incident to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The agreement is enforceable by the Secretary of State, so it is essential that it be made at an appropriate level of detail. Of course it is important that the document to be signed is precise and correct. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would support that, and my understanding is that it is very close to being completed at that level of detail.

    EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
    Andrew Selous: What recent representations she has received regarding the implementation of the EU directive on the recycling of electrical and electronic equipment. [86783]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Department has received representations directly from the consumer, electronics and IT industries and the printer cartridge remanufacturing industry. We have also received representations indirectly from numerous stakeholders through meetings with local authorities, dismantlers, retailers, manufacturers and small businesses.
    Andrew Selous: I thank the Minister for that reply. Given the current difficulty with the implementation of the fridges directive, what assurance can he give the House that electrical goods will not be littering our towns and countryside in future? Furthermore, what assurance can he give us that any costs incurred by
    1006
    local authorities will be fully reimbursed by the Government—unlike the current situation as regards the fridges directive?
    Mr. Meacher: There is all the difference in the world with what happened as regards fridges, which, as I have repeatedly said, occurred because the Commission told the UK of the requirements under the directive at far too late a stage—after two and a quarter years.
    The differences are, first, that there was regulation on fridges, whereas the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive is to be transferred over a much longer period of time, so there is an opportunity for discretion. Secondly, as regards fridges, the UK had only seven months from the time we finally received the information from the Commission, but we have nearly two years to secure implementation of the WEEE directive. Indeed, under that directive, we have already exceeded the draft collection target of 4 kg per head. There is no comparison between the two directives and we shall be ready for the smooth and proper implementation of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): It will be a pleasure. The business for the first week after the Christmas recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY 7 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill.
WEDNESDAY 8 JANUARY—Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 9 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Health (Wales) Bill.
FRIDAY 10 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 13 JANUARY—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 14 JANUARY—Until 4 o'clock there will be an Opposition half day. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Ulster Unionist party, followed by a debate on the London bid for the 2012 Olympic games on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 15 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill.
THURSDAY 16 JANUARY—Motions on the General Synod measure, followed by a motion to take note of various European documents relating to fisheries policy.
FRIDAY 17 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.
Hon. Members will wish to be reminded that although the new hours start in January, on the first day back after the recess the House will meet at 2.30 pm. The reduced period of notice for oral questions and the opportunity to table electronic questions will commence from the start of the new year.
Following another recommendation in the Modernisation Committee report, the Chairman of Ways and Means has agreed that there will be a cross-cutting question session on youth policy in Westminster Hall for one hour on Thursday 23 January. Questions should be tabled by Wednesday 15 January at 12.30 pm. That will be followed by a two hour debate on "Pathways into Work: helping people into employment".
Mr. Forth: Earlier this week, the Leader of the House asked me—rather plaintively—whether I could bear to be pleasant today. As a result, I took a crash course in emollience and seasonal good will. I want, therefore, to offer my wishes for a happy Yuletide and a very happy and prosperous new year to the Leader of the House and, if I may say so through him, to his mother; to you, Mr. Speaker, to your Deputies and to all right hon. and hon. Members; to both the retiring Clerk and the incoming Clerk and all their staff; to the Officers of the House and the employees—and to the world generally. The pleasant bit is now over.
1008
The Leader of the House has told us that on 16 January there will be debates both on the General Synod and on European documents on fisheries. The fisheries issue is important to many Members of the House and their constituents, so will the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the time that he proposes to allocate for the two debates? Given that by that time we shall be finishing early on Thursdays, I hope that fish will not be squeezed by the Church—if I may put it in that way—because it is surely important that the House give the maximum time to the very important issue of fishing policy, and that it is not in any way seen to be neglected.
During yesterday's statement on Iraq, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said:
"the media were briefed yesterday and the House of Commons was briefed today. We are clearly the poor relations."
That certainly seemed to be the case. The Secretary of State said rather petulantly:
"there was nothing in the briefing to journalists yesterday that had not previously been set out clearly to the House of Commons on two, if not three, occasions."—[Official Report, 18 December 2002; Vol.396, c. 846–47.]
Yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph—for the article to have been in yesterday's edition the journalists must have been briefed before the Secretary of State came to the House—said that the preparations included:
"chartering the ships needed to take British tanks to the Gulf."
I am assured that that had never been said to the House before. This is an absolute example not only of the Government and their Ministers briefing the press before the House, but of their making a straightforward denial. This seems to be a case of DMPs—
Dr. Julian Lewis: DMPs?
Mr. Forth: Defence Minister's porkies. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence is not falling into the bad habits of the Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House please take the Secretary of State for Defence to one side and quietly give him a crash course in straightforwardness with the House?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his crash course in politeness and good cheer. Plainly, we can put that down as another success for Labour education policy.[Interruption.] In this case, we may have to try harder.
I fully understand the interests of the House in fisheries policy. Indeed, at this very moment an important meeting is proceeding in Brussels, at which the British case is being presented by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). We wanted to make sure that there was an early opportunity for him to report back to the House and for the House to discuss it. Although I cannot give the precise hours of allocation, I anticipate that the House will want to spend longer on fisheries than on the General Synod measure.
No member of the Government is more punctilious in keeping the House informed than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I suspect that if I were to go through those who had made statements over the past 12 months, I would find that my right hon. Friend

1009
had given among the most, if not the most, statements to the House. Quite properly, he came to the House yesterday, gave a full statement and took questions. [Interruption.] Sometimes, the Opposition's questions do not lend themselves to a reply that is comprehensible to the world outside here. Within those limitations, my right hon. Friend has been to the House as often as anybody else and has made full statements. I should have thought that the House might give him credit for that.
As far as I can tell from the past four weeks, the number of oral statements is comparable with any previous period in the history of the House and is certainly well ahead of the number when the Tories were in power.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Leader of the House give us some advice about the progress being made on reform of the House of Lords? The report was issued last week. Many of us eagerly anticipate a debate on its contents and, in due course, a vote on the issues and options.
What are the Government's intentions on the proposed draft Mental Health Bill, which appears to have been in and out like a fiddler's elbow? Again, the House and people outside are keen to find out what is happening.
Will the Leader of the House assure Members that before military forces are committed to any extended military action in Iraq we will have an opportunity to debate and vote on the commitment of forces?
Mr. Cook: Of course I anticipate the enthusiasm of the House to have a further debate on House of Lords reform, and I look forward to a further debate with the keenest anticipation. I anticipate that the debate will probably be held in the week after the two weeks for which I have announced the business, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not intend to delay the matter. We set up the Joint Committee; we promised a free vote on its proposals, and we want to ensure that they proceed.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that publication of the draft Mental Health Bill has produced many responses. The two Departments concerned are, quite rightly and properly, fully considering the responses and will return to the House once they have had an opportunity to reflect on amendments to be made in the light of that consultation exercise.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the debate in the House only three weeks ago that the Government have no difficulty whatsoever with the idea of considering a substantive motion in the House and, indeed, want to keep the House fully informed and fully behind any action that we take. That is why he said that he would support the House considering a substantive motion at the appropriate time. What the appropriate time may be will have to be judged in the light of circumstances, but, of course, he indicated that, if possible, we would want to ensure that the House had a full opportunity to express a view before action was taken and, if not possible, immediately after action was taken.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: It is splendid news that we will debate House of Lords reform next month, but will my right hon. Friend tell me a bit more about the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which has not been doing much appointing recently? In fact, no people's peers have been appointed this year. I wonder whether the commission meets and how much it costs the taxpayer to keep it in existence.
Mr. Cook: In fairness, I must invite my hon. Friend to reflect on some of his comments when the Appointments Commission has met and made appointments. He has expressed such distaste and disappointment that I really do not think that he should complain that it has not tried to disappoint him again.
Sir Michael Spicer: Pursuing the spirit of Christmas good will announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), may I congratulate the Leader of the House on introducing amendments this week to the data protection legislation to enable Members of Parliament to continue to go about their business? Some people do not like that, but most people think that it is basically a good idea. Does he accept that the Opposition aided and abetted him in that triumph? Will he consider writing a letter to Members of Parliament explaining exactly what the amendments will mean for us?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments, and I am very happy to express the view that, of course, that was a result of an approach that embraced all parties in the House and in which he has taken a very close personal interest. I am pleased to confirm that the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002 came into force this week and that from now on it will not be legal for any public body to cite the Data Protection Act 1998 as a reason why it cannot respond to a request from a Member of Parliament. That was the right decision to take because, when our constituents come to see us, they expect us to take action; they do not expect us to say that we cannot take action because of the Data Protection Act.
Lawrie Quinn: May I take my right hon. Friend back to fishing? He knows only too well how important fishing is to the communities of Whitby and Scarborough. Is some facility available to hon. Members, especially those who represent fishing communities, to allow DEFRA to make a written statement following the conclusion of the current important discussions being held in Brussels, so that we can provide the very best service to our constituents, who are feeling hard pressed and very concerned about their futures, and so that we can do the work that we were elected to do?
Mr. Cook: Before I respond to my hon. Friend's question, may I apologise for not responding to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) that I should write to hon. Members? I shall reflect on that, and it may indeed be helpful for hon. Members to have that explanation in writing.

1011
I understand the importance to my hon. Friend and his constituents not only of the fisheries negotiations but of an authoritative statement before the House resumes. I shall pass on his point to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who may wish to consider writing to him and the other hon. Members most closely involved, but that is ultimately a decision for him.
In fairness, I would say that the Government made provision for fisheries debates before the current negotiations began, and we have taken care to do so again as soon as the House resumes. I know that it is a difficult time for those communities and that my hon. Friend will want a clear statement as soon as possible, but within the constraints of our sitting weeks we have provided good opportunity for him and his colleagues to discuss the matter with the Minister.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Further to that last question, is the Leader of the House aware that if there is a failure to reach an agreement on fisheries, responsibility falls immediately to the Commission? The current Commission proposals mean the total destruction of the UK fishing industry. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware of that, but that is the reality, the truth and the fact. Will he respond more positively to the House and to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn)? DEFRA should provide all Members with a statement on what is agreed and what the Government are prepared to do to safeguard the United Kingdom fishing industry, which is about to be destroyed?
Mr. Cook: In fairness, the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have repeatedly made statements on their position. We are fully aware of the severe demands that the proposals will make on fishing communities in Britain. The Minister of State is engaged in very tough negotiations to find the best possible way forward that balances the needs of fishing communities with the unavoidable fact that we need to take action to preserve future cod stocks. Although it is absolutely right that we should seek to find ways in which we can maintain sustainable fishing communities, that will not be possible unless we also find ways of maintaining sustainable fishing stocks.
Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on revitalising our parliamentary democracy? He has done a lot to modernise parliamentary procedures and to try to modernise Parliament, but many of our constituents still feel remote from the decision-making process. There cannot be a more urgent debate than one on how we more effectively link what happens in this Chamber with ordinary people's lives.
Mr. Cook: I always welcome any opportunity to debate how we can get across the success of this Chamber in exploring important issues of concern to our constituents. Indeed, I noted that one article in the past week recorded the fact that debates in Parliament are often well informed and worth reading. I mention that because, although it may have been only one article in the past week, it is one more than I have seen for most of the previous six months, and we must welcome
1012
support where we find it. The Modernisation Committee met this week and agreed that, in the new year, it will look at precisely the area that my hon. Friend suggests: how we can connect with the public and make sure that they understand the work of their Members of Parliament in scrutinising legislation and holding Government to account.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On House of Lords reform, will the right hon. Gentleman follow the recommendations in the report by having two debates: one to take note, and the other to vote on the various options? Will he ensure that the recommendation that each option should be voted on in turn will also be followed?
Mr. Cook: I cannot resist the recommendation that we should debate the matter twice, not just once. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be our intention to do that, and I would welcome his assistance with finding something original for me to say in the second of the debates. On the question of the voting method, the report of the Joint Committee is one to which we attach the highest importance, and the probability is that we will proceed exactly as it has proposed.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the House is to be relevant we must debate the great issues at the appropriate time? He knows from the pre-Budget report that some very significant changes to environmental taxation, the landfill tax credit scheme and landfill taxation have tremendous implications for the environment. At the moment, four Ministers are engaged in cross-departmental discussions, which will continue over the next two or three months. It is vital that the House has the chance to inform those deliberations while there is still time. Will my right hon. Friend take that on board?
Mr. Cook: I fully accept that the process of scrutiny must be a continuing dialogue between the Government and Members of Parliament. This place provides many opportunities for that dialogue to be continued, not just in the Chamber but in Westminster Hall and in the many other opportunities that are open to Members to make direct representations to Ministers. Of course, the Chamber proceeds on the basis that we debate Government proposals, and my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot arrange for a debate on the issue to which he refers until the Government have come to a view on their proposals.
Pete Wishart: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen this morning's edition of The Scotsman? It was certainly almost enough to make me choke on my cornflakes. May we have an early and urgent debate on the role and the spiralling costs of the Scotland Office, especially following the bizarre and almost hysterical rant by the Secretary of State for Scotland about The Scotsman because it had dared to suggest that she might be under-employed in her new role? Before that debate, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take the right hon. Lady aside, calm her down and explain to her that it is not just The Scotsman that is wondering what on earth the Scotland Office is up to just now.
Mr. Cook: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman by giving advice that is consistent with good health. He

1013
should not attempt to read The Scotsman until he has completed his breakfast, is in good heart and has completed his exercises. I find that that is the appropriate moment to face up to a difficult task.
I get a little fazed by the sensitivity of our press. They ladle out criticism not just of Ministers but of Members of Parliament. However, if there is the slightest, merest murmur that the press may be less than perfect, they react in a way that, I am afraid, requires psychological counselling. Those who give it out must learn to take it.
Andrew Mackinlay: May we have a debate on the workings of the Official Secrets Act? Did my right hon. Friend not conclude that the sentence that the judge gave to Mr. Shayler clearly indicated that the judiciary were certainly not impressed by the fact that this archaic Act does not provide for a public interest defence? It is against our interest to have abortive prosecutions and we will not be able to use the Act when a matter of real national security, rather than the trivialised Shayler case, is involved.
Mr. Cook: This was not in any way an abortive prosecution, nor was the case dropped. On the contrary, it resulted in a conviction. If my hon. Friend looks at what was said by the judge, he will find that he showed no sympathy for the idea that there should be a public interest defence for a member of the security services who had taken information that he had gained while a member of the security services and had given to the press. Mr. Shayler attempted to produce a public interest defence, but the judge made it perfectly plain that he did not consider that that would be appropriate. I do not propose to rerun the trial in the Chamber, but it resulted in a conviction. I honestly do not think that my hon. Friend can pray it in aid as evidence that the judiciary were in any way dissatisfied.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Is the Leader of the House aware that, tomorrow, the Convention on the Future of Europe will debate proposals—which will be supported by the British Government's representative—that would give the European Union exclusive competence, usually by majority voting, in new areas? They include not only foreign policy, but internal policy matters such as intellectual property and copyright. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the industries and trade bodies concerned in those commercial sectors have not been consulted in any way? Moreover, when we debated these matters two weeks ago, the Minister responsible for them gave no indication of his intention. Will the Leader of the House therefore ensure an early statement so that the House can at least be aware of what the Government are trying to give away?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman sought a debate only a few weeks ago on the Convention. Indeed, I delivered it within two weeks of his requesting it. There was then a full opportunity for us to explore the issue. However, I must confess that we were rather surprised to discover the lack of support on the Conservative Benches for that debate. In the light of that, I am not sure that I feel particularly encouraged to arrange a statement.
1014
It would be unwise of me to comment on the matter of detail that the right hon. Gentleman raises, but I remind him that the Government who accepted majority voting on a wide range of trade matters were his Conservative Government. They did so because that is the only way to overcome the veto of those who want to make no progress towards freer trade.
Mr. Brian Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend find time early in the new year for a debate to clarify the position on the Department of Health's management of hospitals and, in particular, the management of the Good Hope, which serves my constituency? Only six weeks ago, I was told that the Good Hope had performed well and that it should be proud of its efforts. It scored well
"on many of the key national targets"
and above average
"on emergency re-admission rates and patient focus measures."
I read in the press today that it is to be put out to be franchised. I am still waiting for the letter to appear on the Letter Board informing me of that, but I have been in contact with the Department for a few months about the hospital. Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending the best wishes of the season to all the hard-working and dedicated staff at the Good Hope and other hospitals as they worry about their future?
Mr. Cook: There should be no need for members of staff who work on the clinical side or in many other parts of the Good Hope hospital to worry about their future. On the contrary, it is precisely because we want to secure a good future for the hospital that we are taking the steps that we are taking to make sure that it has a management that matches the commitment, dedication and qualifications of the staff who provide the services. My hon. Friend will be aware that the hospital's chief executive has just been dismissed. In the circumstances, it is entirely proper that we should look to how we can make sure that the best possible management is provided for the hospital, as that is in the interests of both the staff and my hon. Friend's constituents who are its patients.
Sir George Young: The Leader of the House has announced a debate on the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill. Before we have that debate, will he ensure that Health Ministers are not responsible for any delays? Is he aware that I have a letter dated 9 December that says:
"Thank you for your letter of 13 May"?
I have a letter dated 3 December that says:
"Thank you for your letter of 21 March"
and a letter dated 2 December that says:
"Thank you for your letter of 14 January".
Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that Health Ministers explain why social services departments are to be fined for not discharging a patient within three days, but Health Ministers are not to be fined for not answering a letter within 10 months?
Mr. Cook: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's point and of the fact that other points of order have been raised on the issue in the past week. I will certainly seek

1015
to make sure that those points are registered. It is important that Members receive an acceptable service. The intervals that he describes are not acceptable.
Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the evolving crisis in Ethiopia. I was part of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Ethiopia, where we were able to see the crisis at first hand. It is clear that there is a short-term food problem. It was pleasing to hear that the Department for International Development is likely to find the resources to help meet the shortfall, so will he pass on the thanks of the delegation for that?
At the same time as we are doing our part, is it not disgraceful that we hear today from Dr. Mula Kasela, the Finance and Economic Development Minister in the Ethiopian Government, that Nestlé is pressing for full reparation of the £6 million that it claims it is owed? Is there something that the Government can do to make it clear that, when people are starving, it is not right for multinational companies to demand their pound of flesh?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the appreciation that he has expressed of the work being done by the Department for International Development and the Government to make sure that we play our full part in the international efforts to contain the famine and meet the needs of Ethiopia.
I heard the interview this morning on the "Today" programme with, I think, one of the directors of Nestlé. I noted his plaintive complaint that he was surprised at the hostility of John Humphrys, but many of us could have warned him of that. I hope that, in the light of the interview, that director is reflecting on the position taken by Nestlé. It is not a matter that is, or should be, within the competence of the Government; it is a matter for Nestlé. However, as he appeared to hint in his closing remarks, if it is pursuing such funds from the Government of Ethiopia, it should make sure that the same amount is available to the hungry people of Ethiopia.
Mr. Michael Jack: May we have a debate on ministerial responsibility? I refer to a report in The Times yesterday about the Licensing Bill, which stated:
"Ministers have admitted privately that several parts of the Licensing Bill are ridiculous and need complete redrafting. Officials are being blamed for drafting over-zealous rules into the Bill."
Does the Leader of the House agree that Ministers are responsible for their legislation and for what goes into Bills? They should not criticise—even privately—those who cannot answer in the House.
Mr. Cook: I also warn the right hon. Gentleman that Ministers are not responsible for what appears in the press. He should treat with some scepticism what he has quoted to the House. As Chairman of the Legislative Programme Committee, I meet the Ministers who propose the legislation.
I wish to take the opportunity to say that I have the highest confidence in the parliamentary draftsmen and the parliamentary counsel who prepare the texts for this place. They are of high quality and they all could
1016
command higher salaries in the private sector. It is their commitment to the public sector and the intellectual rewards of their work that keep them working for us. We are fortunate to have them.
John Cryer: Following on from earlier questions, it does not bother me where the Secretary of State for Defence makes his statements about Iraq; what bothers me is that he makes them at all. It is clear that America is going headlong towards a war against Iraq and it looks as though the Government will support it 100 per cent. Whichever Minister gives the green light for an attack on Iraq will be responsible for the butchery of men, women and children on a massive scale without any good reason. We should have at least a full-day's debate, and preferably a two-day debate, with a vote at the end so that hon. Members who are opposed to this madness can vote against it in the Lobby. Here, we will be in a minority, but outside in the real world the majority of people are sensible enough to know that a war is absolute madness.
Mr. Cook: Only this week the Secretary of State for Defence said that war is neither inevitable nor imminent. Indeed, the whole direction of the Government's policy over the past few months is to ensure that we proceed through the United Nations and that it gives the regime in Iraq one last chance to avert military action, as Security Council resolution 1441 makes clear. I believe that our action has been successful in ensuring that we get the inspectors back into Iraq. I take it that my hon. Friend is not objecting to the disarmament inspectors returning to Iraq. They are, after all, UN inspectors and are there to ensure that Iraq carries out its commitments not to have weapons of mass destruction. We await their report on the Iraqi dossier early next year. I hope that over the months ahead the weapons inspectors will keep us informed of their progress in achieving their objective, which I am sure my hon. Friend shares, of ensuring that we eliminate the weapons of chemical, biological and nuclear capacity from Iraq that would threaten its neighbours. If Iraq co-operates and we make sure that it understands that we stand behind the inspectors, there will be no war, no need for my hon. Friend to vote against it and, indeed, possibly an opportunity for him to congratulate the Government on the success of our policy.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Leader of the House urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to end the uncertainty that hangs over the Kent and Canterbury hospital year after year? Now that the legal proceedings are over, yet another leaked plan has come to light involving fresh expenditure different from that contained in the five or six earlier plans. As Christmas approaches, will the Government make an announcement that tells the hard-working doctors, nurses and other hospital staff that they are going to keep the accident and emergency unit and the regional centres of excellence where they are accessible to the people of east Kent?
Mr. Cook: I doubt whether I can arrange for a statement in the remaining six hours of this part of the

1017
Session, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend and invite him to write to him.
Mr. Martin Salter: I am sure that many hon. Members share my concern about the unsatisfactory facilities for visiting parties to this place compared with almost any other modern democratic Parliament. Even the new visitor centre is far too small to meet the demand for information and refreshment. What plans are there to improve facilities for visitors?
Mr. Cook: I commend the visitor café, which is off Westminster Hall. I took some guests to it last week and it provides a good service. Indeed, I encourage more hon. Members to use it because at present it has a 50 per cent. usage rate. On the future of the facilities, we are in the middle of examining proposals for a new visitor centre. A feasibility study has been proposed. Our comments on it include the suggestion that we should examine options off-precincts as well as on-precincts. A visitor centre that provides interpretation would help immensely to improve the educational value of a visit to Westminster. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) might like to know that it will not be an entertainment, but an educational visit so that people leave here with a sense of the way in which the institution is a working institution and the heart of our parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) on the Good Hope hospital, which is located in my constituency and serves our constituents, may I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that the inquiry is widely regarded locally as intimidatory and disproportionate? Although I echo strongly what the hon. Gentleman said about the dedication and hard work of the staff, principally my constituents, who work in the hospital, it would help to have a debate on the way in which the health service conducts such inquiries so that hon. Members can share their experiences.
Mr. Cook: Of course I am open to hon. Members commenting on reports that affect their constituents and the public services within their area—indeed, there may well be general lessons to learn that are applicable to other cases—but one cannot ignore the fact that the chief executive of the Good Hope hospital was found guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed summarily. The hon. Gentleman makes a face, but surely in those circumstances he realises that it is in the interests of his constituents that action is taken to ensure that we have a strong management team to match the quality and strength of clinical staff in the hospital.
Geraldine Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that national health service dentists are becoming an endangered species? My constituents have great difficulty registering with an NHS dentist and have to go private. They often have to
1018
pay dental fees that they cannot afford or suffer in pain. Can my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on that important subject early in the new year?
Mr. Cook: I cannot promise a specific debate on the dental service, but my hon. Friend will have many opportunities to raise concerns about provision within the NHS. As she well knows, we are in the middle of a record investment in expanding NHS provision, as a result of which we have more nurses, more doctors and more beds than ever before. We all want to ensure that that investment provides greater access for our constituents so that they receive the appropriate treatment that they need.
Mr. Roy Beggs: May I extend on behalf of my colleagues the compliments of the season to you, Mr. Speaker, to Members and to the officers and staff of the House?
Will the Leader of the House advise me on whether good will and Lib-Lab relations have developed to such an extent that the leader of the Liberal Democrats is now answering questions for the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), who is responsible for education in Northern Ireland; or am I reading too much into the fact that a pre-school funding question was answered by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), at column 548W on 16 December?
Mr. Cook: I think there may have been too many Kennedys spoiling the broth. If there has been a misprint, I shall certainly ensure that it is drawn to the attention of Hansard, which will wish to correct it. [Interruption.] I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that my hon. Friend the Minister has a very satisfactory life. I am in no doubt that she will want to ensure that her name and no one else's appears with her answers.
Bob Spink: Can we find time for a debate on the Annan Cyprus settlement, which shows both promise and problems? We need to ensure that the terms on territorial boundaries are correct and protect the rights of the original property owners, especially in Kyrenia and Aiyos Ambrosios. We also need to be able to remove all troops and achieve demilitarisation in the island as soon as possible and to give Turkish settlers the deal that they need to encourage as many of them to return to Turkey as is appropriate.
Mr. Cook: We have achieved historic progress on Cyprus. I took an interest in it when I was at the Foreign Office and am well aware of all the great difficulties involved in getting a settlement. I always took the view that the maximum opportunity for resolving the long-standing dispute was connected to making progress on the accession of Cyprus to the EU and the prospect of that for Turkey. That has turned out to be the case and I compliment my hon. Friends at the Foreign Office, especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the personal interest that he has taken in moving the issue forward.
The hon. Gentleman illustrates the difficulty in getting an agreement. He produced a shopping list of demands that are the demands of one side only. I hope

1019
that many of the matters will be addressed in a comprehensive settlement, but it will have to show flexibility on both sides.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Does the Leader of the House recall that on 5 December I asked him whether we could have a debate on the social chapter, following the Prime Minister's claim the day before about how influential it was? The Leader of the House responded by giving me details of what he considered to be the benefits to the UK work force. I did not agree with his answer, so I tabled a question along the same lines to the Prime Minister, who replied to me in writing on 11 December. Not one of the seven or eight points in the Prime Minister's response relates to the UK work force, only to the European work force. May I request a debate on the social chapter in Government time? I suggest that it is entitled, "The Social Chapter—What Price the British Interest?"
Mr. Cook: I clearly recall the 1997 general election and the comments on the social chapter at the time, as I was then the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs. I remember the very public claim made by the then Conservative Prime Minister that if we signed up to the social chapter, it would cost Britain 500,000 jobs. Five years on from the election of the Labour Government and from signing the social chapter, we have 1.25 million more people at work than there were then. Only this week we had further evidence that there are 250,000 more people in jobs than there were a year ago. That is very satisfactory progress and provides no evidence that the social chapter has damaged employment in Britain—on the contrary, it has certainly raised the conditions of employment.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a debate early in the new year on early-day motion 412
[That this House notes the United States request to upgrade facilities at RAF Fylingdales to enable the possible development of defences against ballistic missiles aimed at Europe or America; and calls upon the Government to respond promptly and positively to this long-anticipated request, not withstanding the opposition to the ballistic missile defence previously expressed by more than 200 Labour back benchers]
and also on early-day motion 436? Both relate to the American request to upgrade RAF Fylingdales, with a possible view to the creation of a system of ballistic missile defence. The former motion expresses the view of the Opposition, which also appears to be the view of those on the Government Front Bench, that such a request should be seriously considered and should probably receive a positive response. The latter reflects the views previously expressed by more than 200 Government Back Benchers that on no account should
1020
ballistic missile defence be supported. Such a debate would obviously be topical, it would obviously be important, and if there were to be a substantive motion, it would obviously give the Leader of the House the opportunity to show the House whether he would vote along with those on his Government Front Bench, as one thinks he might have to, or along with the majority of his Government Back Benchers, as one thinks he probably wants to.
Mr. Cook: Life does not provide enough opportunities to vote alongside my Government. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip will make sure that I know which Lobby is the appropriate one in which to express my support for the Government's excellent record.
On Fylingdales, the hon. Gentleman is aware that there has been an approach and that the Secretary of State has made it plain that he will keep the House informed about what response the Government will make. The matter will, of course, be considered with great care. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will take 25 December off from considering it carefully, and that he will also relax a little on 31 December, but at an appropriate time after the House returns, I am sure that he will wish to make a statement to the House.
Mr. Mark Francois: A merry Christmas to you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the treatment of those who suffer from heart disease? That will give us an opportunity to raise the fact that in Essex many patients have to wait up to a year for an angiogram, which is a particularly important diagnostic test for those who may be suffering from heart disease. It is unacceptable that in some cases they have to wait up to 12 months for that test to be performed. Finally, in a spirit of good will, may I thank the Leader of the House for what he has done on data protection? That was important, and the change needed to be made.
Mr. Cook: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman ventilated the matter in the House and his attempt to introduce a 10-minute Bill provided a useful focus of debate. We have achieved an outcome that is in the interest of Members in all parts of the House. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the waiting period in his area for angiograms, and I shall invite the Department of Health to write to him about the matter. On the general issue, we have invested heavily in better coronary care services and have made good progress in reducing the waiting time to see a consultant for the first time about coronary care. We fully understand the importance of making sure that we provide a world-class service in that respect.

Point of Order
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday you will have heard the Secretary of State for Scotland assert that during the Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill on 11 November 1998, I voted for the Scottish Parliament to have 129 Members. What actually happened was that a number of Liberal peers' amendments had been grouped together, which, in the nature of the Liberal party, covered all eventualities. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who spoke in that debate, made clear the position of the Conservative party and which amendments we supported. In that case, it was an amendment that allowed the Scottish Parliament to make its own decision. Have you received an apology from the right hon. Lady for her inadequate research, or a request to correct the record?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. Perhaps the hon. Lady should enter into correspondence with the right hon. Lady.

Adjournment (Christmas)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 19th December, do adjourn until Tuesday 7th January.—[Mr. Ainger.]
1.16 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Like all my colleagues, I wish you, Mr. Speaker, everybody in the House and my constituents a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
In the debate prior to the summer recess, I warned that the ruling Liberal coalition on Hull city council was unstitching the regeneration plans put in place by the previous Labour administration. Sadly, my concerns have gone unnoticed by the Liberals and things are getting worse in one of the most deprived areas of the country. In the short time since my last speech in the House on this matter, regeneration in the most deprived areas has halted; the housing demolition programme has ceased partly completed, with no environmental remodelling; and the planned high-tech citywide closed circuit television system for Hull as a whole has been abandoned. In a nutshell, as a result of recent decisions taken by the Liberal Democrats, there is little for residents in my constituency to feel happy about in the run-up to Christmas and the new year.
Jeremy Corbyn: My council is also controlled by the Liberal Democrats who, in a spirit of support for the local community, have just put on sale for £28 million a series of community centres, local disability groups and advice centres to any property speculator who cares to buy them and who, given half the opportunity, would redevelop and evict those groups. Does my hon. Friend think that that is a trend on the part of the Liberal Democrats?
Mr. McNamara: That is a difficult question to answer, because half the time I do not know whether the Liberals know what they are doing and what they are not doing. As a consequence of what they have been doing throughout the country, they have made many local communities fear for their future and for the security of their institutions.
In the summer Adjournment debate, I expressed concern that the Liberals would rescind the previous council's commitment to revamp the shopping centre in Orchard Park as part of a joint initiative with the Department of Health's LIFT programme, which included a pledge to build a one-stop health centre, for which the Government had given private finance initiative approval.
Sadly, I have been proved right. The Liberal Democrats have pulled the plug on the regeneration scheme, stating that the Orchard Park shopping centre could be regenerated through the LIFT scheme. However, that option was not accepted happily by the Department of Health, which advised me that it was not possible for the West Hull primary care trust to purchase the ownership of current retail developments. Surely the council should have taken the basic step of checking what the situation was before reaching a decision.

1023
So a council regeneration scheme in my constituency, which scored higher than any other capital scheme in the authority's capital programme review, is being abandoned. The council has been strangely quiet about its reasons for abandoning such an important project. I think I know why. No sooner had they been elected than a document sent to Hull city council's cabinet for consideration recommended that the council rescind the shopping centre regeneration project. In it, the chief financial officer stated that the continuation of the planned regeneration could be justified only if Orchard Park remained a priority. Orchard Park is at the centre of one of the most deprived wards in this kingdom.
So there we have it. The Liberal Democrat administration were given the option to make the regeneration of one of the most deprived wards in the country a priority, but they turned their back on it. We now have a precarious situation in which councillors are supporting a Labour Government initiative to establish a new health centre in the area through the Department of Health's LIFT scheme, possibly providing a council customers' office, a community centre and a citizen's advice bureau through the private finance initiative, whereas what the community wants—the regeneration of the eyesore that is the Orchard Park shopping area—has been stopped.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the ruinous policy of the outgoing Labour council, which sold off the telephone company and blew all the money on useless projects?
Mr. McNamara: The money was not squandered. Let me tell the House how it was used. More than £22 million was used for a new stadium, which happened to be opened last night. It was supported by the sporting authorities and aimed at regenerating part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). It includes a community centre, special facilities for the whole college and its sporting courses, special facilities for the disabled and facilities for all the schools in the area, all situated under the north stand.
We also spent the money on double glazing houses, installing central heating, and ensuring that roofs were secure and doors draught-proofed. Those seem to me to be reasonable measures for a Labour council to take. They were all done out of capital expenditure, with no impost on the community. We then spent a great deal of money on resurfacing roads and rebuilding pavements. Those were all capital projects requiring no ongoing support. We used the money to repair schools, build new schools and help various community projects. I am proud of what the council did with the money, although I am deeply disappointed that my own Government used our improvement of the highways as an excuse to cut our highways grant. That was disgusting.
The money was not blown, and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) should be aware that money raised from such a flotation, which was urged on the council by the Government, cannot be used for reducing other forms of Government expenditure: it can only be used for proper capital projects. Had the hon. Gentleman done his homework, he would have realised how the council spent the money. The way in which it was spent had the full support of the citizens of Hull,
1024
because it was spent on improving our environment and social amenities. Had the council had twice the amount of money, we could have used it just as well and for better purposes. We would not then have been left with a Liberal Democrat council putting on hold all the schemes to regenerate my constituency.
Bob Russell: Can the hon. Gentleman explain whether the citizens of Hull, having had that utopian paradise created, were being ungrateful in rejecting a Labour council?
Mr. McNamara: The citizens of Hull bitterly regret the fact that the Liberal Democrats are now in power because they have opposed everything and created nothing. We are still waiting to see whether the council will deal with those problems, rather than leaving my constituents in Bransholme and the Orchard Park wards with areas that look like bombsites because the council stopped the demolition of buildings and halted the environmental and other urban programmes. That is what we are concerned about in Hull, and I am certain that at the next elections the Liberal Democrats will find that they spend the same time in office as the Tories did in the mid-1960s—at best, a couple of years.
The leader of the council promised people in the area that regeneration would be a priority and that she would listen, care, consult and learn. She said:
"People's opinions are important, and so is our commitment to listening and acting upon their views and concerns."
That was a patronising attitude for her to take having scuppered a regeneration scheme that my constituents had wanted for many years. We now do not know whether regeneration is a priority for the Liberal Democrats, or what the new action team will do. The people of north Hull and Orchard Park are fed up about that, and showed their feeling in a recent strongly worded petition which they sent to the council, to which they are still awaiting a reply.
My second concern is the council's decision to halt the surplus housing demolition programme on the Danes estate and in Bransholme. Many local people were pleased with the programme to demolish surplus houses on the Danes estate. Crowds gathered to watch the pulling down of two blocks of flats, and residents thought that that represented an end to living next to boarded-up houses and vandalised garage blocks. They believed that the demolition programme was the beginning of a fresh start for the estate. There was great excitement about how the estate should be developed, with safe play areas for children and a better environment for families.
Furthermore, the independent councillor Chris Jarvis, a cabinet member with responsibility for housing, raised residents' expectations by telling the Hull Daily Mail:
"The city is entering a period of change. Remodelling public and private housing is something we intend to do in full consultation with communities."
He went on to say:
"It is fitting that their views have been taken into consideration and the blocks are to be demolished."
Would that that were happening. Demolition has ceased; there is no environmental regeneration; and the councillor involved has turned down several opportunities and invitations to talk to Danes residents about what will happen in their area.

1025
Finally, I want to talk about something that is tied up specifically with living conditions on the estate—the Liberal Democrat council's decision to abandon their share of a proposed closed circuit television scheme in the area. In parts of Bransholme and Orchard Park, mindless vandals frequently set houses alight. One Saturday afternoon, three houses were torched and the council did the bare minimum to deal with the problem, employing just three security guards. Elderly residents are afraid to step outside their homes and, when they go to bed at night, they wonder whether the vacant property next door will be set alight. Areas that were once thriving are now very much in decline, with just a few houses occupied.
Therefore, when my constituents heard with joy that the Government were advancing plans to fund the demolition of surplus houses, they wondered what the Liberal Democrat council was doing on the estate. That point relates to the CCTV projects in Hull. As all hon. Members know, antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime are the main concerns of all our constituents. I fully support Hull community safety partnership's plan to implement a high-tech, citywide CCTV scheme. The digital scheme is based on a model on the Thornton estate in west Hull, where it reduced crime dramatically. Within the first 18 months, overall crime plummeted by 50 per cent., burglaries were cut by 48 per cent. and criminal damage by 49 per cent.
Not surprisingly, the community safety partnership put together a proposal for a citywide digital scheme and, due to its high-tech and innovative approach, secured a £5 million grant from the Home Office and £1.6 million from UK Online. The council had to contribute £3.6 million—a third of the overall cost. The project received international interest and in the light of the innovative approach adopted in the Thornton scheme, the city could have recouped a considerable part of its initial expenditure.
However, the new Liberal council opposed the scheme and it is now questionable whether the £5 million from the Home Office will have to go back to the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can give me some precise advice about that. Instead, the council wants the existing city centre analogue CCTV system to be expanded when possible, but that is a very poor relation to a citywide project covering the areas where most vandalism and burglary occurs and giving back confidence to people who live in the remoter areas and more deprived estates. It took its decision without consulting the community safety partnership. One worries whether it is serious about tackling crime. We wanted that scheme, especially in our most deprived areas, although it is interesting that the decision of the leader of the council means that people in her own area, where burglary is rife, will not have the satisfaction of knowing that their houses are protected against it in the day and during the night.
The scheme would have been of immense importance to the city. It would have been a pioneering scheme that brought to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends security and the certainty that they were safe to go out in the day and could sleep safely in their beds. That would have had a profound affect on Bransholme, Orchard Park and the Danes, where people could have
1026
felt that their interests were being catered for. Instead, the Liberal council's wanton abandonment of the scheme has put the most deprived areas in my constituency into further distress.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will talk about the matters that I have raised with those responsible for housing, as well as the Home Office and the Department of Health, and find out what he can do to ensure that we get the money and get the schemes back on track.
1.33 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I draw the attention of the House to my interests, which are clearly set out on the register.
I have two purposes today. First, I should like to wish Mr. Speaker and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all the servants of the House, a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year. Secondly, I want to do justice to the constituent who approached me in the middle of Sutton Coldfield last Saturday, when I was out dispensing Christmas cheer and seasonal good will, and said—I think that I quote him exactly—"Please, Mr. Mitchell, go down to Westminster next week, and before Christmas, stuff it up this rotten, useless Government." That is my second purpose today, but although the Minister may regard me as the Victor Meldrew of Sutton Coalfield by the time I sit down, I mean no disrespect to him, as he is a decent cove and indeed a fellow cyclist in London. Like me, he has no doubt despaired of Labour's transport policies and is therefore driven to using a bicycle in London.
This is a truly dreadful Government. It is now six years since they were elected. We heard the refrain—indeed, we heard it in music—that things could only get better and many of today's Ministers have made a career out of belittling the achievements of the previous Conservative Government, of whom I am most proud to have been a member. However, this country has now enjoyed 10 years of unprecedented economic growth—there has been no other time since the war when we have seen such extraordinary economic prosperity in Britain—and it derives principally from the groundwork done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and indeed by Lord Lamont from 1992 onwards. It is because the Labour party has stuck to a number of key tenets of that approach that that prosperity has continued for 10 years.
That is all now turning to dust. Having started so well, the Chancellor has now been shown quite simply to be wrong. His projections are wrong and in the autumn statement, as it used to be called, we did not even receive an apology for the fact that his forecasts had been so seriously awry. We now face the prospect of an old-fashioned Labour spending crisis, enhanced by the new jobs tax that the Government are imposing from next April. It is very likely that next year, we will see the traditional Labour economic crisis of out of control spending and reduced taxation receipts. The Government will be forced either to increase tax, in contravention of their promises at the last election, or to increase borrowing massively.
It would not be so bad if the money was being well spent. The Government are obsessed with inputs and insufficiently concerned with outcomes. In every Prime

1027
Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and recites a mantra to one of my colleagues, saying that if they do not approve his spending plans, they should please tell him which hospital in their constituency they would close. That is absolute nonsense. What Opposition Members are saying is that it is very important that the Government focus on outputs. We want to improve our public services and that is not always about money; indeed, it is frequently not about money. The Government have missed about 40 per cent. of the targets that they are so fond of imposing on people.
That brings me to the health service. We now see that there has been a 20 per cent. increase in spending on the health service, but only a 1 per cent. improvement in services. That is a classic example of where the Government go wrong. Of course, there is great dissension in the ranks and concern about foundation hospitals on the Labour Benches. I think that the concept of foundation hospitals is extremely good in seeking to improve outputs and patient services. However, on this morning's "Today" programme, we heard the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) reaching for his cudgels to lay into the Government on that important policy. That shows how they will inevitably fail in their bid to improve services, although I am sure that it is sincere. Although they are prepared to throw taxpayers' money at the issue, they are not prepared to take the necessary measures.
During business questions, we heard reference to the Good Hope hospital, which has this morning been awarded no stars for its recent performance and whose chief executive has now gone. Although the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) had not received a letter from the Secretary of State, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for getting one to me before this debate. I do not disagree with the outcome and the fact that a hospital will now be subject to franchise arrangements. However, I believe that the investigation that led to such criticism of the hospital, many of whose staff are my constituents and work very hard and in a very dedicated way on behalf local people in our area of the west midlands, was disproportionate.
I understand that there were 36 reporting errors in relation to almost 10,000 patients. If the same amount of time and money was spent on investigating any hospital in Britain, I suspect that 36 errors might well be found in respect of 10,000 patients. The whole process that the hospital has undergone has been too slow, and I fear that it has also been intimidatory. There is a feeling around that the Department of Health and its Ministers are concerned to demonstrate that hospital managers who do not reach Government targets will be held accountable, rather than to deal with the underlying problems. I am very concerned about that.
Through the Minister, I should like to ask the Department of Health when it intends to address the serious underfunding problem that afflicts the Good Hope hospital. The problem was highlighted in the report produced by the Commission for Health Improvement, which found that the hospital is funded at the lowest reference cost of any hospital in the midlands. I hope that we will have a chance to return to the nature of the inquiries, but I want to put on record my respect for the dedication and hard work of all those
1028
who work at the hospital, especially during these very difficult past six months, and have served my constituents and others so well throughout the years.
Mr. David Drew: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind if I do not go along with his general comments despite the season of good will. However, I declare an interest in Good Hope hospital because the former chief executive, Jeff Chandra, is my constituent, and I have been dealing with his case. I do not want to go into detail, other than to say that his allegations are worth investigating. He resigned and was subsequently dismissed, which is extraordinary, but the conduct of the inquiry left him with little alternative because it appeared as though the result was already known. That is not acceptable, and I join the hon. Gentleman in asking for a full inquiry to ensure that natural justice is seen to be done and genuinely done.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that his constituent, the former chief executive, has been treated unusually. Although he is also right to say that it would be wrong to pursue the matter on the Floor of the House, I hope that the point about natural justice will be heard.
Let us consider the Government's next disaster—pensions—about which we heard a statement this week. When the Conservatives left government, our pensions system was the envy of Europe. In a few short years, the Government have destroyed that position. Means-testing is running riot. Who could believe that more than half of all senior citizens would be means-tested? There is enormous confusion in the system, and the pension credit underlines that point.
The Government may be in danger of being sued for mis-selling the stakeholder pension, given that many people who take out such a pension may not benefit because of the minimum income guarantee regime. Stakeholder pensions are a flop and the Government have presided over a crisis in the pensions industry. I am not sure whether they understand the extent of the problem, although they made a reasonable start with the Green Paper, which was published this week, and contained several good points. However, there is undoubtedly a crisis.
It is generally agreed that there is a shortfall of approximately £37 billion a year in our pensions savings. If the Government do not believe that they contribute to the problem by taking a further £5 billion a year from pensions through tax, they do not have a clue. They have the great advantage of being able to listen to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who speaks such good sense. I hope that they will have also have the benefit of the report of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, on which I have the honour to serve. When possible, those matters should be tackled on an all-party basis, and I hope that the Select Committee will help to do that.
The Government will have to make a decision on pensions. It is not rocket science. Either the employer, the employee or the taxpayer will have to find the extra money that is essential for people to enjoy security in their retirement. Someone once said that to govern is to choose, and the Government will have to make some tough decisions. That is right. Instead, we are wasting

1029
time on ridiculous measures such as the anti-hunting Bill, which is a peripheral matter at best and should not receive the time that it will take up in the House and the other place.
If I had time, I would lay into the Government about their appalling record on crime and law and order. They introduce too many knee-jerk public relations measures and focus too little on the massive increase in violent crime in much of the country, the growth of illegal immigration, which requires their urgent attention, and the loss of special constables. The latter has proved a great disadvantage to Sutton Coldfield.
On the "Today" programme, we heard that a competition is to be launched so that people will be able to vote on whom they would most like to eject from Britain. My nomination is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I refer specifically to her recent attack on British senior management, which she described as "second rate". She has found a learned academic to undertake a study into British senior management, but for the right hon. Lady to make such a comment shows breathtaking arrogance and ignorance.
The Government have drowned business in red tape. They are the prime problem for businesses. Since May 1997, there have been massive changes in employment law. They include the contract workers regulations, discrimination legislation, the information and consultation directive, the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, the temporary agency workers directive, the prospectus directive, the climate change levy and the physical agents (vibration) directive.
Many of my hon. Friends know people who run British business. Life is tough out there, and the Government, especially the Department of Trade and Industry, make matters worse. The people who run British business battle day in, day out in a tough, complex and testing market. Many are fired for not performing, regardless of justification, unlike Ministers in the current Government. As they battle away with the problems, many of which the Government created, the Secretary of State lectures them. Yet the Department has missed most of its public service agreement targets. That is breathtaking. I advise the Secretary of State to listen carefully to what business men are trying to tell her and the Government, rather than lecture them on their under-performance. It is astonishing that a bossy, nanny-state Government, who exceed their competence and stray into matters about which the Secretary of State and her ministerial team know almost nothing, lecture business men.
Six years ago, we heard that things could only get better. However, most things in this country, especially in Sutton Coldfield, have got worse. The Prime Minister said in 1997 that we should judge him on his record. Now we can do it. The Government have run out of excuses. Clever spin can buy time but cannot hide the results of bad policies. The problems are crowding in on Downing street, and I hope that 2003 will be the year when the Government are found out.
1.47 pm
Geraldine Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the Christmas Adjournment debate and raise several issues that affect the people whom I represent in Morecambe and Lunesdale.
There is no doubt that the majority of my constituents continue to do rather well under the Labour Government. Unemployment is at its lowest for 25 years, inflation is under control and at its lowest for decades, and incomes continue to increase at a faster rate. Home owners have seen the value of their properties rise and those with mortgages have benefited from low interest rates. The working families tax credit has enhanced the earnings of many families, especially those on low incomes. They are set to benefit even more from the child tax credit. Pensioners, especially the poorest, have fared extremely well, and I welcome the introduction of the new pension credit next year. It will provide extra cash for pensioners with modest secondary pensions and savings.
All in all, the majority of my constituents are reasonably content with the Government's economic performance. However, I do not believe that the same satisfaction exists with the Government's handling of public services. Although there is undoubtedly widespread support for the Government's massive public service investment programme, even it there is less enthusiasm about paying for it, there is growing dissatisfaction about the provision of high class, modern public services in return for the investment.
Improvements have doubtless been made on some matters, but there is a long way to go on others. We must be honest about that. For example, let us consider education. My constituency has benefited from additional funding to schools and colleges. Hon. Members have only to visit their local schools to see refurbished buildings, extra equipment, new books and clearly visible staffing resources. Thanks also to the literacy and numeracy hour and the efforts of the dedicated teaching staff, standards have risen across the board. I am confident that, as the extra investment continues to flow in, standards will continue to improve.
However, there are still concerns—some of them grave—about the over-testing of pupils and the overuse of supply teachers, as well as question marks over the introduction of the AS-level examination and the expansion of specialist schools. Of course, the shortfall in further and higher education funding needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency. Strong representations have been made to me by Lancaster and Morecambe college in my constituency, which has great difficulty paying lecturers' salaries and keeping up, as salaries are falling behind those of primary school teachers. We must address the issues of higher and further education.
There is no doubt that Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS trust has received real-terms increases in recent years, but they have been sufficient only to stop the rot. Ever-increasing demands on its services have eaten up the extra resources provided and prevented comprehensive improvements from being made to them. Waiting lists for consultations and operations across the board remain far too high.
I am grateful for the huge funding increases that the Government will provide over the next three years—a massive 30 per cent. in my area—and confident that they

1031
will make an enormous difference, but again I am extremely concerned, as the Government have so far been unable to secure a new contract with the NHS consultants. It is fundamentally important that a deal be reached as soon as possible.
I have a final point to make on the NHS, which I have raised in the House previously. In my constituency, it has become virtually impossible to register with an NHS dentist. Those who can afford it and many who cannot are forced by pain to seek expensive private dental treatment, while the remainder simply have to suffer until they can be dealt with. Although the Government have provided extra funding for a dental access centre in Morecambe, it has yet to open. It will help, but it will not solve the problem on its own.
We have only to look at what is happening in dentistry to see what would happen to the rest of our health service if the private sector held a dominant position across a wide range of medical services. Surely that must be one good reason for not voting Conservative at the next election.
Crime and antisocial behaviour are constantly raised with me by my constituents and frequently debated in the House. They remain matters of grave concern to us all and to our constituents. As Members are aware, a range of measures has already been introduced to combat crime and disorder, with varying success. I have my doubts about how successful antisocial behaviour orders have been. They are right in principle, but the police tell me that they have great difficulty collecting all the evidence required to obtain an order, with the result that not many ASBOs have been issued throughout the country.
Further measures are under consideration by the House, and I am sure that many of them will play a useful role in our efforts to combat crime. The introduction of street wardens and community support officers will prove to be extremely successful, I believe. Wardens and CSOs are already operating in my constituency and I am pleased to say that they are providing a valuable service. They are clearly visible, they gain valuable intelligence and they reassure the public. In fact, they are the eyes and ears of the police; they detect minor crime and help to stop vandalism. However, we must remember that they are not police officers and they should never be used as substitutes for them.
It remains a fact that the vast majority of the public are far from convinced that the fight against crime has been won. Public confidence in the police's ability to win the war against crime will not be restored until the police are able to provide a regular, high-profile and visible presence on the streets of our towns and cities, particularly in the evenings and late at night. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of my constituents feel that it is essential to have more police out on the streets. I entirely endorse that view.
I accept that transport has been a disaster area. I have to say quite bluntly that there is absolutely no doubt that the rail and road systems are in a dire mess and need to he sorted out urgently. The public need to see some improvement in the near future, and last week's motorway improvement announcement by the Secretary of State is a step in the right direction.
1032
In my constituency, there is a long-standing bid to build a link road from the port of Heysham to the M6. There is almost universal acceptance at all levels of government that a link is required, but there is a dispute about the routing of the road. The city and county councils, the North West Development Agency, local businesses and I all favour the western route, which offers the best prospect for economic development of the area. Some Green councillors and the Government office for the north-west prefer the northern route, as it appears that it would have a less adverse environmental impact. Both routes are undergoing environmental impact studies.
Access to Morecambe and Heysham is poor, whether by private car or by public transport. Rail services are infrequent and, in the main, run only as far as Lancaster, where visitors to the town of Morecambe are required to change trains. They frequently encounter lengthy delays. The ticket office and waiting room on Morecambe station are closed from early afternoon and in inclement weather passengers have to huddle together under an open-ended shelter on the platform. After the ticket office is closed, no information on late-running or cancelled trains is available to passengers. I know that from experience. I missed a train to London from Lancaster, because the train from Morecambe to Lancaster was cancelled. No information was available. That does not encourage people to use public transport.
Bus services to our resort are also infrequent and often become entangled in the traffic chaos and congestion that pervade the Lancaster and Morecambe area. Those who travel to the resort by car experience similar difficulties. There is no doubt in my mind that poor access to Morecambe is the biggest single barrier to investment and regeneration. It is therefore vital that, as soon as the difficulties over routing the M6 link road are resolved, the Government provide the funding to complete the link.
It is clear to me that all the problems with the public services, whether it be transport or health, have been caused by years of chronic underfunding and outdated working practices. I lay most of the blame at the feet of the Opposition, who for 18 years let our public services slip into such a terrible condition. However, I warn the Government that, after five years in power, the general public's patience is wearing thin. They want to see real progress being made with our public services.
At the outset, I referred to the fact that the majority of my constituents have done well under this Government, so it is only right to refer to those groups that have done less well. I must begin with the farmers, who even before the foot and mouth disease outbreak were having a very difficult time. Things have certainly not improved, and nine farms in my constituency have gone out of business since January.
Farmers came to see me to ask me specifically to raise in Parliament the 20-day standstill period imposed on livestock movements after the foot and mouth outbreak. It is having a terrible effect on their businesses and they would like it to be removed. I understand that the Government imposed those restrictions to help to prevent another foot and mouth outbreak, but it is important that they obtain a proper risk assessment as soon as possible to establish whether the 20-day rule is necessary. Is it not doing more harm than good for British farmers?

1033
Farmers are also concerned about illegal meat imports, which they consider a much more likely cause of a future foot and mouth outbreak. We must think about what can be done, through Customs for instance, to stop such imports. British farmers need a level playing field. They must abide by high animal welfare standards and regulations, and that is right and proper, but those standards and regulations often do not apply to countries whose meat is being imported into Britain and can be produced much more cheaply. Consumers still need clearer labelling on products, although some progress has been made. Many dairy farmers are struggling with poor milk prices. I urge the Government to take all possible steps to deal with the serious position of British farmers, and to help the farming community to survive a difficult time.
Equal consideration should be given to those who are desperately trying to earn a living in tourism. The collapse of the holiday trade means that a huge stock of former guest houses and hotels in Morecambe are now sub-standard houses in multiple occupation. The proliferation of HMOs has acted as a magnet for the urban poor, in much the same way as the Sangatte centre in France attracted asylum seekers and economic migrants. HMOs in Morecambe have attracted many socially disadvantaged and mainly transient people to the town, which has put enormous strain on all our public services. The Government recognised the need to work with France to break the magnetic attraction of Sangatte, and took exceptional steps to do that. Now they must do the same for Morecambe: they must break the magnetic attraction of HMOs.
High unemployment is endemic in several wards, and deprivation and social exclusion are widespread. Much of Morecambe's infrastructure is old, decaying and in need of refurbishment. The resort's premier attraction, Frontierland leisure park, has closed, as has Bubbles leisure complex, and it still has no theatre. Productions are occasionally put on at the local market hall, but stallholders must forfeit their businesses to accommodate them, and shops in the main Arndale centre and the surrounding area continue to become vacant with alarming frequency. In short, the resort urgently needs regeneration.
The North West Development Agency has been helpful, paying consultants to produce a report and an action plan to assist Morecambe's regeneration. Early in the new year I will seek funds from the Government to make the plan's implementation possible, but we need more than money: we need assistance and expertise on the ground. Councils often do not have the resources or the expertise to engage in regeneration projects, especially large regeneration projects. I would welcome further assistance from both the Government office for the north-west and the North West Development Agency in the new year.
Finally, I wish everyone a happy Christmas and—hopefully—a peaceful new year. I shall watch closely to ensure that improvements are made in our public services.
2.4 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: It is the season of good cheer. Let me convey the Liberal Democrats' best wishes to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to Mr. Speaker's team and to the House authorities.
So far the debate has been lively and entertaining. Let me start by saying that on many previous occasions I have sympathised and agreed, to an extent, with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—particularly on Northern Ireland matters—but on this occasion I think he got it wrong. I am sorry to say that the elections that disposed of his party in local government in Hull did exactly what local elections are supposed to do: clear out the bad guys and give a once proud city an opportunity to make a fresh start.
Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, the district auditor and others have criticised the council strongly, and it was recently judged one of the 13 worst councils in England in a comprehensive performance assessment. The new administration has inherited ruinous housing policies—and, of course, it replaces an administration every one of whose members was elected in the Labour cause only a few years ago.
I am sorry not to be able to agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North, who I think is showing himself to be something of a bad loser.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have every reason to agree with me. Liberal Democrat-controlled Islington council has decided to sell off community centres, advice centres and many other buildings. Some are licensed and some are leased out, but all of them could be bought for redevelopment by property speculators. That is the only reason anyone would buy a community centre now. Would the hon. Gentleman be so kind as to contact Councillor Steve Hitchens and tell him that he is working outside Liberal Democrat policy?
Mr. Stunell: I am in frequent contact with Councillor Hitchens, and I am sure we will discuss many things when we next meet. Let me point out, however, that not just Islington but a number of other Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities, including Liverpool, have been at the cutting edge of implementation of new Labour's policy of using private funds to improve public services at a time when it is impossible to persuade the Labour Government to provide enough public money.
We could have an interesting discussion about local government around the country and I would be more than happy to engage in such a discussion either now or some other time, but I do not want to strain your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will say this, however. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) set out to "stuff it up the Government"—I think I quote him correctly. I felt that his subsequent comment that the Conservatives' pensions policy was the envy of Europe rather spoilt a speech that had some factual material buried deep within it; but then such a description of the Conservatives' pensions policy would be somewhat beyond the pale at any time.
One of Hazel Grove's small claims to fame is that when the first state pension was introduced—by a Liberal Prime Minister—there was such a surge of

1035
people wanting to collect the pensions, which in the early days were issued by police stations rather than by post offices, that the police came out with their truncheons to try to quell the enthusiastic crowd. I think it fair to say that pensions policy has been contentious ever since.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), a fellow North-West Member, had some wise words to say. I hope the Government takes note of them. I was particularly struck by her observations about the difficulty of securing NHS dental treatment. That is a problem for many Members' constituents, especially those who move around the community. Those with long-standing arrangements with NHS dentists may be protected. In my constituency, as in many others, dentists have swapped into the private sector, leaving established patients with little option but to pay substantial private fees or to cast themselves adrift and look for alternatives.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The Liberal Democrat party cannot possibly oppose private dental treatment, because the party political literature put out by its chairman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), is sponsored by Denplan.
Mr. Stunell: I am sure that my hon. Friend can speak for himself. If private enterprise companies are prepared to support the Liberal Democrats I would not stop them. [Interruption.] It might be wise to move on.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale made a further point about transport. We have a shared interest in the development of the west coast main line. I am sure that, like me, she is disappointed that the first phase of renewal is to be the last, and that the improved links from the north-west that she and I want will be a long time coming.
During the year, as well as considering issues that affect our domestic and local circumstances, the House has discussed important international issues in some depth. They include global terrorism, the crisis in the middle east and the plight of the world's poor. The House has had many opportunities to quiz Ministers and to hear about the Government's work on these matters. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the recent impressive lobby of the House in support of the third world and the need for debt reduction. The Government sent a strong team to Johannesburg, and the Prime Minister spoke there. There are plenty of good intentions, but on outcomes Johannesburg gave at best a six out of 10 performance. A great deal more remains to be done on the world stage if those key matters are to be tackled.
I am sure that the Government would acknowledge that unless we tackle the underlying problems of poverty, disease and the absence of education, the more immediate problem of global terrorism and the difficulties in the near east, the middle east and elsewhere will become more deeply entrenched. The words that the Prime Minister uttered in Johannesburg should be translated into positive initiatives by the United Kingdom in the coming year.
It would not be right for me to move away from international affairs without drawing the House's attention to the deep unease in the country about
1036
developments in Iraq. Liberal Democrats believe that it is of the greatest importance that the House has an opportunity to decide prior to the commitment of UK military forces to the Iraq conflict. It cannot be right in this day and age, and with our new, proper and developed understanding of what accountability means, for the House to be bypassed when such major decisions are taken. When that debate takes place, many of us will want to make it clear that it is not solely about the feasibility or legitimacy of military action, but about the utility of military action in an inflammatory situation such as the conflict in the middle east.
When we have got rid of Saddam Hussein and have successfully completed the conquest of Iraq, what will happen next? Many of us find it difficult to understand plan B. If the House is unable to understand clearly what the Government believe should happen with regard to the international situation, to express a view and to vote decisively on it, it will be a struggle to convince the public of the legitimacy of military action.
It would also not be right if I did not give the Minister and the Leader of the House credit for their efforts over the past year to make the House more effective and to improve our law making, our work on behalf of our constituents and our ability to hold the Government to account. I welcome the decisions that the House has taken this year to make our Select Committees more effective, to provide for more draft Bills to be considered by the House and by outside experts, instead of their being introduced in a fossilised form for the ritual, formulaic debates that we so often have, and to improve the pre-legislative scrutiny system.
I am looking forward with great anticipation, as the Leader of House ironically suggested earlier, to the debates on the reform of the House of Lords and to the changes in the upper Chamber in due course.
Unless we make changes and improvements to the workings of the democratic system in both Houses we cannot expect the public miraculously to come to the view that we are doing a good job. If we want the public to be engaged in politics, we must do a good job, and the mechanisms of the system must work properly. Although I entirely support the view that we should develop our visitor centre, make it easier for visitors to come here and give them a proper education in democracy, I also firmly believe that unless we improve that democracy we cannot expect greater respect from the general public.
I hope that all Members of the House enjoy a peaceful 2003, and that our constituents may continue to look forward to an improvement in public services and public safety.
2.18 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I hope that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) will forgive me if I do not follow him down some of those important avenues. Third world poverty and the situation in Iraq are matters that I would use other opportunities to raise. I have just returned from Mozambique, which has come through a fantastic transformation. It is 46 years since I did my national service in Iraq, which led me to take a key interest in development in that country. I do not want the people of Iraq to be subject to invasion, mayhem and cumulative damage.

1037
I want to refer to the problems surrounding certain trading schemes. A person who runs a business under a franchise from a company falls under such arrangements. The company is known as the master franchiser, and the smaller business, which is often run from a person's home, is referred to as the franchisee. I have been pursing this matter with the Department of Trade and Industry since May 1999. Unfortunately, the individuals about whom I am concerned have lost their livelihoods through no fault of their own. They suffered at the hands of two sources: first, the illegitimate actions of their master franchiser; secondly, the failure of the DTI to use its legislative powers and duties to regulate or to prosecute the offending master franchisers.
I want to begin by covering the illegitimate moves undertaken by, and the pressures brought to bear by, the master franchisers Chem-Dry Midlands and London, and Chem-Dry Northern and Southern. First, they obliged franchisees to register for VAT in order to continue receiving Chem-Dry's insurance work, irrespective of the franchisees' turnover. This probably involved the tort of conspiracy. Secondly, franchisees were forced to purchase non-compliant Velda machines, which proved an entry barrier to their operations. Thirdly, franchisees were not offered revised contracts under the terms of the Trading Schemes Act 1996. Fourthly, the master franchisers did not exercise good faith and care in executing contacts with the franchisees. Other points, which could be added to my list, have been presented fully to the DTI.
I turn to the failings of the DTI in this matter. The relevant legislation that the DTI should have acted on when the matter was brought to its attention was part XI of the Fair Trading Act 1973, as amended by the 1996 Act, and its subordinate legislation; and regulation 3(a) of the Trading Schemes (Exclusion) Regulations 1997, as amended. Much rests on exactly who was exempted from the DTI's controls under the 1997 Regulations. Companies that are excluded from DTI controls are known as "single-tier" bodies, as defined in the relevant statutory instrument. It took an inordinate amount of time for the DTI to agree that Chem-Dry was not single-tier, and that it was therefore subject to the DTI's regime. Even then, the DTI still did not act. I tabled five parliamentary written questions on the matter. They were bundled together, and a written answer was given to me on 18 April 2002. It stated:
"Where a breach of legislation over which the Department has oversight is identified, and that breach is addressed by way of criminal sanction, the Department will consider bringing a prosecution, taking account of the evidential and public interest tests set out in the Code of Crown Prosecutors."—[Official Report, 18 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 1152–53W.]
However, that was not acted on in the cases that I am referring to.
In the meantime, some people left the franchise system, as they correctly believed that Chem-Dry's contractual arrangements were in conflict with the legislation. They were then in no position to sell their businesses on, and they folded. Unfortunately, a control of, or prosecution of, Chem-Dry by the DTI is probably no longer feasible, because the DTI had previously sent a letter to Chem-Dry Northern and Southern incorrectly stating that it is a single-tier body and is thus
1038
exempted from the requirements of the legislation. The letter is both incorrect and inconsistent with later DTI responses to me and to others, including the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young).
Matters have now reached the stage where the DTI should provide compensation for the former franchisees, who have lost their businesses and suffered considerable disruption and stress. The DTI should at least meet some of the franchisees and the MPs involved, such as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and me. My requests for such meetings have been rejected in the past. The DTI's suggestion that the franchisees should take civil action against Chem-Dry is inappropriate. The responsibility rests with the DTI; the franchisees have suffered enough traumas, having held on for a long time, waiting for the DTI to undertake its duties. Nor does the parliamentary ombudsman constitute an avenue that can effectively be turned to—although we did attempt to do so—as this matter is overlaid with strong legal considerations.
Although the DTI seems to me to be guilty of serious acts of maladministration—if not illegality—it is clearly time for it to act and clear up this mess. When this account is relayed to it, I hope that such action will begin, perhaps initially through a meeting such as I suggested.
It will not be a very happy Christmas and new year for the franchisees, but I wish them the best. I hope that, by raising their concerns, I have advanced their cause in some way, so that we can attempt to rectify the problem. To Members, my constituents and everyone else, I offer the best wishes of the season.
2.27 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made effective use of the time of the House by raising a significant issue; however, in the interests of brevity I shall not seek to follow up the important points that he made.
I would not be doing my duty if I did not seek to discuss today the state of the national health service in my constituency, because the situation is indeed dire. I plead for the gift of tongues to do justice to the anger, frustration and disbelief of my constituents about the withdrawal of services, and the bad services that are now being offered, in my area. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not in any sense criticising the staff of the national health service, whom I have always found to be devoted, committed and very hard-working; it is the system that is wrong. The staff are trying to cope with enormous organisational problems that are simply insuperable.
I want to discuss five issues, the first of which concerns podiatry, chiropody and general foot care. Under the breathtaking headline "Improvements to Footcare", a circular was sent out to those who had chiropody services in south Hampshire, in effect pointing out that their service was being terminated. It stated that, although some individuals have specialist problems such as diabetes, those with "ordinary problems" would be left to cope for themselves. Such people include a woman in her 80s who is blind, and who suffers badly from in-growing toenails. How on earth is she to cope with her problem, which to her is serious?

1039
I have received scores of angry letters from constituents who simply cannot believe that their foot-care service is being terminated. The problem is not confined to my area, although it is worse there than in many others. A number of Members, including me, signed an early-day motion on the matter. It notes that
"the Government is fully aware of the situation but has failed to act; and calls on the Secretary of State for Health to publish the report of his review, known as Feet First II, and to make a statement on how he intends to respond to these concerns."
These are serious concerns for those affected, and it simply is not good enough for the Government to turn their back on people with serious foot-care problems.
The second problem in my constituency is dentistry. One dentist has exercised his right to leave the NHS, which means that 2,500 patients are now without NHS dentistry care. They are advised to contact NHS Direct, which refers them to Cosham, Southsea, Farlington, Havant and Chichester, which many hon. Members will know is a long way from Gosport. One constituent—unemployed and a non-driver—was referred to Bracknell in Berkshire. We think that that was a mistake, but we do not know how he would have got there. For those who do not know my area, I should explain that non-drivers who are referred to Portsmouth must travel by bus, then boat, then bus again. The last leg of that journey to a simple NHS dental appointment might even require two buses.
Time and distance studies by primary care trusts specify how far and for how long NHS patients are expected to travel to receive NHS dentistry treatment. The PCT in my area is making valiant efforts to encourage dentists to opt back into the NHS and provide emergency treatment for local people. At the moment, however, no dentists in Gosport are taking on new adult NHS patients. People seeking NHS treatment have to travel for as long as an hour to reach a dentist providing NHS treatment. That is completely unacceptable.
The third problem in my constituency to which I wish to draw attention is the situation at the Gosport War Memorial hospital, which used to be a cottage hospital. There was a campaign to close it, but I was part of a campaign to keep it open and it became a community hospital. It is very highly regarded, conveniently located in Gosport and has caring staff, and its league of friends—as active as any in the country—is very successful at raising money for what is a much appreciated and loved hospital for which people used to have nothing but praise.
In the long period during which I have represented Gosport, I never received any complaints about Gosport War Memorial hospital until a woman who lives in Eastbourne complained about the death in the hospital of her mother, who was in her 90s. Deeply though one regrets that lady's death, the complaint was that she had been put on diamorphine. In those days—we are talking about 1998—prescription practice was rather less specific than it is now. It was not unusual for a doctor to prescribe a range of diamorphine levels and leave decisions about how much a patient needed to the discretion of nurses.
That practice is what I would expect in a hospital where doctors and nurses know and trust each other. However, that did not satisfy the woman, who
1040
complained bitterly and demanded a police inquiry into the alleged illegal killing of her mother. The police conducted an inquiry and concluded that there was nothing further to inquire into. The woman made a further complaint, and a second police inquiry reached the same conclusion as the first.
Further agitation, and by that time the keen interest of local newspapers, led the PCT and others to decide that it would be appropriate to hold a further inquiry so as to reassure all the people dealing with the hospital. The Commission for Health Improvement carried out that inquiry and produced an action plan that is now being followed. That brought the total number of inquires to three.
However, the complainant kept going. By then, other people had begun to wonder whether they might have something to complain about after their 80 and 90-yearold relatives had died in the hospital. Eventually, Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, appointed Professor Baker to carry out a clinical audit of the hospital. That made four inquires. However, the press was by then building up interest, and 57 people complained that their relatives might have died because of inappropriate treatment. Another police inquiry—the fifth inquiry overall—has been launched, and a firm of solicitors that took part in the Harold Shipman case has also become involved, possibly helpfully, although the name Shipman means that newspaper reporters have become even more excited.
The strategic health authority decided that there should be a further inquiry into the hospital's management over the past 10 years, and the chairmen of the two PCTs concurred. That makes six inquiries. Meanwhile, the General Medical Council is carrying out a seventh inquiry, and the Nursing and Midwifery Council an eighth.
The House can imagine the cost, and the effect on management, of all those inquires. I only hope that they all conclude quickly. I have visited the hospital twice recently to meet patients and staff and to say that I know the hospital o be highly regarded. I want to thank again all the staff and everyone involved in the hospital for what they have done to maintain a high standard of care in the Gosport area. I hope that the matter is resolved soon.
The fourth problem centres on my area's district general hospital, the Queen Alexandra, which is the sixth largest hospital in the UK. In a letter that I received this morning, the Secretary of State for Health told me that the hospital has once again received no stars. Waiting times in its accident and emergency area are up to about six hours, and the hospital has been criticised for its lack of cleanliness. On several recent occasions, ambulances with patients waiting to be admitted have queued up outside the hospital in serried ranks, but the patients could not be admitted because no beds were available.
The hospital is in crisis. I pay tribute to those working desperately hard to improve matters, but there is a risk of catastrophe there. I wish the hospital well in the forthcoming private finance initiative bid, which may result in its being improved in the next five years. However, I mention the Queen Alexandra hospital in my contribution because it has an impact on another hospital in my area, the Royal Hospital Haslar.

1041
Hon. Members who know me well will not be surprised that I should raise the fate of the Royal Hospital Haslar as my fifth point. That hospital was scheduled for closure, although not before 2002. It is dependant on the PFI bid at the Queen Alexandra hospital, and is presently scheduled for closure, but not before 2007. It is being built up as a diagnostic and treatment centre, and is very successful. Its accident treatment centre is being reviewed with a view to its being more widely used, which would take some pressure off the Queen Alexandra hospital.
I had a meeting with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), on 19 March, at which others from my constituency were present. I pleaded with the Minister to bring joined-up Government to bear on the issue of the NHS taking over Haslar hospital, so that its undoubtedly superb facilities can be used for the benefit of the NHS and all patients in the area.
I have not yet heard from the Minister following that meeting on 19 March, although I have submitted verbal and written reminders. I hope that I will hear from her soon. I yearn to hear that she is reviewing the possibility of reconfiguring the hospitals in my area and making sure that Haslar is used in the longer term for the benefit of everyone in the area.
I shall look now at the effect of all that I have recounted on one family in the area. I was talking to my constituent Mr. Barry Martin last night, and have his permission to use his name. What has been the cumulative effect of the defects in the NHS in my area on his family?
Mr. Martin is a war pensioner. He used to receive foot care for about 15 minutes every quarter. He told me that the treatment used to make him feel that he was walking on air. He has a war wound, and problems with his spine mean that he cannot bend. He needs foot care, but he is not getting it.
Recently, his daughter was admitted to Queen Alexandra hospital. She was discharged at 1.30 am with no money, and had to negotiate with a taxi firm to take her home. The firm was paid the next day. Mr. Martin's wife took a friend to the same hospital to see another friend who had undergone an operation, and found herself stuck in a big traffic jam that surrounded the hospital. That is not unusual, and Mrs. Martin's friend had to walk the last few hundred yards as it was impossible to drive closer. So bad are the traffic problems around the Queen Alexandra hospital that buses often do not complete their journeys there but have to stop at the bottom of the steep hill that leads up to the hospital. Patients and visitors then have to walk up that hill.
Whose fault is all that? It is not the fault of the people involved, who work very hard and are devoted and committed. It is the system that is wrong. Many decent constituents have said to me over recent years, "I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for health care if I thought that it would improve." Well, they are paying much more but are getting a much worse service. Why should that be?
Let me share two vignettes with the House. First, a senior NHS manager said to me, "I know that people are not getting the service that they should be getting from
1042
the health service but I promise that I will improve the situation. I will increase the size of the public relations department and I have dramatically increased the size of the complaints department." Those were his priorities. Secondly—and I love this one—someone in education, whom I know quite well, said to me recently, "We have a problem with funding in education; schools take 88 per cent. of all the spending, leaving us with only 12 per cent. for administration."
These examples show that the Government are wrong. Thinking that they know best and that services can be centralised and controlled leads not to improvements but to deterioration. I hope that the Secretary of State for Health will read the report of this debate and respond to the points that I have raised, because there are serious concerns about the national health service in my area.
2.41 pm
Mr. Iain Coleman: I should like to take the opportunity of today's Christmas Adjournment debate to raise a subject that is a matter of grave concern to me and many of my constituents in north Fulham, namely the proposal of the Post Office to close a Crown post office in North End road. That area of north Fulham has recently been the subject of a successful bid for the new deal for communities regeneration programme, which I cite as evidence of the fact that it is a deeply deprived area, certainly the most deprived and poorest in my constituency.
The area served by the post office is bounded by the Queen's Club tennis estate and Baron's Court underground station to the west, Talgarth road to the north and Lillie road to the south. The area has five housing estates built between 1912 and 1977 and the housing tenure in the area is 67 per cent. social housing, 14 per cent. privately rented and 19 per cent. owner-occupied. The area has been in long-term decline and the rate of unemployment is well above the local average at 11.2 per cent.
Some 12 per cent. of the households in the area have an income of less than £5,000 per annum and 25 per cent. of households have an annual income of less than £10,000. Single parents head 15 per cent. of the families living in the area, which has a significant non-white population—well above the Greater London and national average. Eighteen per cent. of the population have English as a second language and, of that figure, 15 per cent. have no or little English. Educational attainment is significantly below the borough and regional average. Some 36 per cent. of residents of working age have no recognised qualification, compared with a borough average of 12 per cent.
Crime in the area is high—nearly 50 per cent. higher than the regional average. Victims of crime are much more likely to be black, from an ethnic minority community or to be elderly residents.
Poor health is a fact of life for far too many of my constituents in this area. The social services have a much higher mental health case load and the area has a disproportionately large number of children on the child protection register. Because of poor diet, very high levels of smoking and drug and alcohol abuse, life expectancy is well below the national average.

1043
I should like to outline concerns not only on the decision to close an extremely important local facility but on the manner in which the Post Office conducted the whole consultation exercise.
On Monday 25 November my office received a telephone call from Ms Jackie Illsley, a senior regional Post Office manager, asking my staff whether they had received a letter posted on the previous Saturday—23 November—advising me of the Post Office's proposals to close the Crown post office in my constituency. Bearing in mind the poor record of the mail service locally, I was frankly surprised that the Post Office had any realistic expectation that a letter posted on Saturday would be likely to arrive in my office by Monday morning. My office said that no such letter had been received; an hour or so later, a fax arrived from Ms Illsley advising me of the Post Office's intention to close the Crown post office.
I learned later that at the time that the letter physically arrived in my office, the staff at the local post office had already been informed of the intention to close their place of work, despite the fact that under the Post Office's own procedures, the local Member of Parliament is supposed to be given adequate prior notice of any closure proposals.
The next day I met Ms Illsley in the office of the leader of the council, Andrew Slaughter, and one of the other local ward councillors, David Williams. The three of us made clear our strong objections to the proposal to close the post office. I asked Ms Illsley 'whether she could advise me why that particular post office had been singled out for closure and how much money it would lose in the current financial year. She advised me that she was unable to inform me of that figure, although she said that it was somewhere between £100,000 and £500,000.
During a rather acrimonious meeting, the leader of the council and I made it clear why we thought that it was inappropriate to close the post office and why the proposals for other locations for people to use as an alternative to North End road were unacceptable. One alternative that Ms Illsley gave us was a post office in Earl's Court, which is more than a mile away from the North End road post office and extremely inaccessible, particularly to the many elderly clients who use the one in North End road.
At that point, Ms Illsley admitted that she was unaware of the fact that the Earl's Court post office was in a different local authority. It was quite clear to Councillors Slaughter and Williams and me that no real thought or effort had gone into identifying other appropriate alternative locations.
At the end of the meeting with Ms Illsley, I spoke to a journalist from the Fulham and Hamrnersmith Chronicle who advised me that earlier that morning she had been sent a press release from the Post Office informing her that the North End road post office had to close because it was losing £107,000 a year, a figure that Ms Illsley was unwilling to give me, the local Member of Parliament, later that day.
Last week I attended a public meeting at the Bhavan Indian cultural centre in Castletown road, which is next to the North End road post office. It was extremely well attended given the short notice and bearing in mind the inclement weather and the fact that it was so close to
1044
Christmas. Councillor Slaughter and representatives of the Communication Workers Union were present, as were three senior managers from the Post Office, including Ms Illsley.
It was the unanimous view of those attending that the Post Office proposal was unacceptable and that the Post Office had failed to take into account the damaging effect that the proposed closure would have on this very disadvantaged community. The overwhelming view expressed by local residents about the proposal was that no serious effort had been made to analyse the effect of the closure on the area and that the Post Office had made no attempt to take into account its duty as a public body to provide a key public service for the local community.
I am pleased to report that following representations that I know were made by Kay Dixon, the chairperson of Postwatch—the independent body that is supposed to look after the activities of the Post Office—who chaired last week's public meeting, the Post Office has now agreed to extend by one month the consultation period on its proposed closure.
Throughout this whole débâcle, the Post Office has claimed to the leader of the council and to me that this was and is a genuine consultation exercise and not a "done deal", to use Ms Illsley's phrase.
The council is running a very vigorous public consultation exercise and more than 1,000 postcards have already been returned to the office of the leader of the council expressing residents' grave disquiet about the proposal.
I am pleased to report that the local Labour party has run a vigorous campaign and that more than 500 signatures have been received separately by my office expressing support for the campaign to keep the post office open. Only last night, Hammersmith and Fulham council passed a unanimous resolution, with support from all the parties represented on the council, calling on the Post Office to reverse its decision. I am hopeful that, bearing in mind the strength of feeling locally, the Post Office will recognise that its proposals are unacceptable and that the decision will be made to renew the lease on the post office, which Ms Illsley has confirmed is an option, and that this important local facility will remain open to serve the interests of some of the poorest people living in this area of London.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to bring this important matter to the attention of the House. May I take this opportunity to wish you and all hon. Members the compliments of the season?
2.50 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: The House should not rise for this Christmas until it has heard about the experience of my constituents whose Christmas three years ago was ruined because their homes were flooded, and who now realise that they are very unlikely to be better protected in the future.
The area under threat is the Iford bridge park on the banks of the River Stour, the site of about 100 so-called mobile homes although, like many such homes, they are actually permanent homes—in this case for retired or semi-retired people, some of whom are disabled. Some of them have sunk their life savings into their homes.

1045
On Christmas night 1999, the river overflowed its banks and the homes were flooded. The residents were evacuated by the police, to whose efficient response I paid tribute at the time. I visited the site as the residents were returning home to assess the damage and to retrieve what they could. Twenty years before, in 1979, the site had been even more seriously flooded when it was under water for more than a week, after which it was understood that measures would be taken to reduce the risk.
In response to representations that I made about the experiences of Christmas 1999, I was amazed to learn from the then Minister with responsibility for fisheries and the countryside, now the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), that after the 1979 experience the then owner of the site had declined the offer of flood protection at public expense. That was also news to residents of the site when I arranged for officials of the Environment Agency to meet them. It was then agreed that a new protection scheme should be investigated.
Last year, the agency proposed a one in 15 to 20 year protection scheme and the residents were willing to accept it. Sadly, however, at my public meeting with the residents on 25 October this year, we were told that the scheme would not meet DEFRA criteria for public funding. Instead, a much more modest one in seven year defence scheme, costing about £170,000, was to be investigated. However, there was unlikely to be any funding for it because we are located in the south-west region, which is not to benefit from the Government's new funding for flood protection—apparently.
The week following that meeting the river overflowed again and the residents were evacuated. Two weeks later, on 14 November, nearly all of them were evacuated for a third time because the site was under two feet of water, which internally damaged 13 homes. Two homes were severely damaged and one was written off. Power to all the homes could not be restored for several days.
This Christmas, after three major evacuations in as many years, my constituents understand that they cannot expect any better protection from the Government in the future.
I have asked Bournemouth borough council to produce a report on the situation for its members to consider. The council is the planning and licensing authority for the site and is responsible for providing emergency services. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and I look forward to supporting the representations that I anticipate members of the council will want to make to the Government.
In the meantime, it will be helpful to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies to the debate, whether the Government's flood protection policy differs for the residents of mobile homes and those who live in more conventional properties. Do the Government give the same weight to mobile home parks and permanent dwellings in the provision of flood defences in flood risk areas? Will any of the extra £150 million funding for flood defences announced by
1046
the Government in June this year be available for the south-west region? I am told by the Environment Agency that it will not. If the answer to that question is yes, it will give some hope to my constituents this Christmas that £170,000 of that amount might fund some protection so that they do not continue to face the prospect of no protection.
Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish you and Mr. Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers, the Officers of the House, every hon. Member and all my constituents a very happy Christmas.
2.54 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I want to talk about Wandsworth prison, which is in my constituency. First, I pay the warmest tribute to Jan Croxford, the chairperson of the Wandsworth prison board of visitors and to all her colleagues for the many hours that they spend in the prison each week. I pay equal tribute to all members of the Wandsworth branch of the Prison Officers Association, especially the branch secretary Stewart McLoughlin and the chairperson Jim Shaw, for their involvement in the day-to-day running of the prison. Far too often, their work is not fully appreciated.
Wandsworth is an old prison; it was built 150 years ago and is the largest prison in the United Kingdom. At any one time, the prison's population is more than 1,400 inmates. The certified normal accommodation figure is only 1,163, so the approved number of inmates is exceeded by more than 200. The governor, the board of visitors and the POA have the right to ask how long that overcrowding will continue.
I often wonder whether the Home Office authorities fully understand exactly how such overcrowding affects the day-to-day routine of a prison. For example, in Wandsworth, more than 700 inmates are two to a cell. The daily regime suffers enormously because the problem of overcrowding has gone on for a very long time.
Association is extremely important in prison, but there is little association in Wandsworth owing to the pressures on staff. Phone calls are essential in enabling prisoners to keep in contact with their family and friends, yet they, too, have to be limited. Inmates are unable to take showers as often as they should.
Wandsworth has a vulnerable prisoner unit whose inmates follow a special regime. Their parole is dependent on their completing an offending behaviour programme, but that programme is subject to great pressure.
There are problems in scheduling adequate booked visits to inmates. I am sure that Members will understand the great anger often experienced by family members or friends when they phone the prison to try to arrange an appointment for a visit but receive no answer owing to the difficulties faced by the staff at Wandsworth.
All those problems are caused by prisoner overcrowding. When I have outlined such problems in previous debates, colleagues with prisons in their constituencies have often described similar experiences.
An adequate number of prison officers is vital to the running of a prison, as are their skills. Staff retention in Wandsworth prison is difficult. Often at weekends there

1047
are fewer than 50 officers on duty for a population of over 1,400 inmates. No one can possibly claim that that is acceptable; indeed, it is unacceptable because of all the potential risks and dangers that could result.
We now have a ban on the transfer of prison officers from Wandsworth simply because few officers wish to work in Wandsworth or, indeed, any prison in the London area. Can we really blame well established officers for not wishing to be transferred into the London area? To start with, where can they live? At one time we had prison officer quarters; now we do not. The price of local property in the borough of Wandsworth is well beyond the means of a prison officer. A housing allowance is urgently needed. Without doubt it would help recruitmen and retention.
Officers who have moved away from the Wandsworth area and drive into work at the prison face problems finding somewhere to park their car, because Wandsworth borough council gives them absolutely no help with parking facilities. Those are the problems facing skilled officers who stay and work in Wandsworth prison.
When I chat to experienced officers who have worked in the service for a long time it becomes clear that the salary of a prison officer is far too low. Moreover, London weighting for prison officers is only £3,500. They often ask me why their London weighting should be considerably lower than the £6,000 paid to an officer in the Metropolitan police. I have never been able to find out from questions to Home Office Ministers why there is this substantial difference.
Let me give the House an idea of the attitude of prison officers. A prison team is responsible for re-profiling—namely planning exactly how long each job takes and designing a strategy to enable the prison to deliver a proper service to the inmates. Members of the Wandsworth branch of the POA voted to accept the plan by 182 to 82. That shows clearly the willingness of officers to accept and work with change.
The Butler trust award was made to the prison's probation officer for developing good practices for dealing with foreign nationals held in prison; I understand that foreign nationals in Wandsworth and other prisons present a real problem. Foreign nationals who when sentenced were also recommended for deportation wait in prison for weeks and months before that deportation order is served on them. That adds to the pressures.
I understand that it is intended to close E wing, which holds some 160 inmates. The men will be transferred to other accommodation within the prison, not to other establishments. That will add further pressures to an already overcrowded prison. The Home Office may have good reasons why it wants to close E wing. It may want to do work on it, but because of the excessive overcrowding it should rethink whether that wing should be closed at this time. I have been in the House for a long time and Wandsworth prison has always been in my constituency. I have seen some real ups and downs there. At times I wonder whether the Home Office has a strategy, irrespective of what party is in Government, and a policy to deal with prison overcrowding. We have
1048
the largest prison population in Europe and it is increasing. We are told that it will continue to increase. I cannot honestly believe that we can be proud of that.
Bob Russell: The Home Secretary is proud of it.
Mr. Cox: If he is, I am not proud of it and nor are many hon. Friends who sit on the Labour Benches.
Another major issue resulting from the overcrowding pressures in Wandsworth prison and many other prisons is assaults on prison officers. Tensions build up among inmates when they are doubled up, denied association and face problems getting visits from family and friends, and prison officers are first in line. It is not right that prison officers should run the risk of being assaulted by inmates. What am I supposed to say to a prison officer who has been assaulted? Am I to say, "I am sorry that has happened to you. I hope it does not happen again"? We often know the reasons for such assaults and we have a right to ask for urgent action from the Home Office.
In March early-day motion 1072 was tabled, entitled "HM Prison Service and Golden Jubilee Medal". It called on the Government to award prison officers with more than five years' service with a medal. It was not done, it still has not been done and I have no idea why it has not been done. The refusal has caused great anger within the prison service. Why were officers not awarded the medal? Why are prison officers not awarded that medal or a proper long service medal? May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that, even at this late hour, it could be done and it should be done? I ask him to make very clear to the Home Office the very deep disappointment and concern that many hon. Members and I share about the lack of the award of that medal to prison officers.
My final comment to my hon. Friend is that it really is time that we were allowed a proper day's debate in Government time on the Prison Service in England and Wales, and I ask him to convey that request to the Home Office. We need to debate the number of people now in prison, the great cost of that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Office and why we have been told repeatedly that the prison population will continue to increase.
At meetings that I have attended in the House, I have been told that the prison population could well increase by some 10,000 inmates over the next 10 years. I ask my hon. Friend to make known to the Home Office my concern—I am sure that it is shared by many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who represent constituencies with prisons in them—that we should have the opportunity to have a full day's debate on prisons early in the new year.
In all fairness to my hon. Friend, I do not expect him to be able to deal with the many points that I have made in this debate, but I am sure that he will convey my remarks to the Home Office and, in due course, I will look for a very detailed reply.
3.12 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Hon. Members who regularly attend these end-of-term Adjournment debates, such as myself, like to start with the matters arising from the previous term's debate. I commend the Minister on the way in which he has

1049
regularly picked up the issues that we have raised and fed them through to Ministers, but things are not quite as good as they could be because, only yesterday, I received a letter from the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, picking up a point that I made in the July Adjournment debate about the problem of gaining access to broadband in my constituency.
The fact that I have now received a letter makes me think that someone is saying, "If she is going to stand up and bat on about this again tomorrow, we'd better get a letter off to her quick." All I would say to the Minister is that, whatever issue I raise today, I hope that I will not have to wait until Easter to get a reply.
The Minister is, of course, my near neighbour in Devon—I hope that we enjoy cordial relations as neighbours—so many of the things that I want to touch on briefly today will be familiar to him. I am encouraged that, having come to office with a real vendetta against the motorist, the Government have decided this week that roads and motorists are good, so first I want to raise matters relating to roads in my constituency. I have raised these matters before, but I hope that, in this new, enlightened age of the motorists under new Labour, they will now receive more serious consideration.
The first issue is the desperate need for a bypass around the town of Crediton in my constituency. When I have raised this issue in the past, Ministers have said that Devon county council has not really made the case for a Crediton bypass, but I have to share with the House some information on road accident figures, not on the road through the town centre but on the road that approaches Crediton from the north. I have recently received information that has come to light in Crediton.
The chairman of Crediton town council, Mr. Charlie Haydon, has informed me that the council has just discovered that recent accident figures show that there were eight fatalities in six accidents, six serious injuries, 61 slight injuries and 90 accidents involving damage only, making a total of 163 accidents, on a two and a half mile stretch of road just outside the town in the five years from 1997 to 2002.
In the past, Devon county council has written to tell me why it does not think that traffic analysis suggests that a bypass should be built around Crediton on traffic grounds alone, but, clearly, those figures were not disclosed and shared with those of us who have taken a close interest in the needs not just of the local population, but of the travelling public for a bypass around the town. I have to tell the Minister that I shall put pressure on Devon county council, as will Crediton town council, and I hope that we shall have his support because he will know that the road from Crediton eventually leads to the outskirts of his constituency.
The Minister will be only too familiar with the other roads matter that I wish to raise with him. In July 2000, he was standing shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister visited Exeter and made a personal promise to my constituents that the A30 dual carriageway from Honiton to Exeter, which goes through my constituency, would be resurfaced because it is a very noisy concrete road. Despite my many attempts to get Ministers to tell me when that
1050
promise will be met, as yet, I have still no idea. We keep being told that it may happen any time in the next 10 years.
I repeat to the hon. Gentleman, who was there at the time, that when a Prime Minister personally involves himself in something so localised and when he is put on the spot by a local newspaper and makes a commitment, the least he can do is flex his muscles, show his authority and make sure that that promise is delivered. So I am now looking for a date, as are the people who live near that road, and I look to the Minister to assist me in getting a date so that we can know when the road will be resurfaced.
I have just one note of disappointment: the Secretary of State for Transport told us this week that he has decided not to dual part of the A30. The Minister is now giving me a hand signal—I know that he is a cyclist, but I do not recognise it. However, I wish to tell him that the decision not to dual the A30-A303 from Honiton to Ilminster is wrong.
I agree that the road should be dualled from Ilminster to the Taunton junction on the M5—I made that clear in the House this week—but the Minister will know that we need more than one main arterial route in and out of Devon and Cornwall to develop the south-west's wider economy. Again, I seek his assistance in supporting me and many others, including the CBI in the south-west and all those parish councils along the route that support the proposal, to ask the Secretary of State to think again and consider dualling that piece of road.
I want to deal with just one other subject today that has local and national resonance. Again, the Minister will be only too well aware that several wards at Wonford general hospital in Exeter, which serves both our constituencies, are currently closed because of infection. We have not yet grasped the fact that some solutions to hospital-acquired infections could be implemented very quickly.
I know that some of the so-called superbugs are resistant to antibiotics and some new drugs, and I realise that there is no single solution. However, as someone who once worked in a hospital operating theatre and who taught cookery many, many years ago—in those days, hygiene was taught automatically as part of the cookery course—I know that some basic practices in hospitals wards, among trained and untrained staff, could be corrected tomorrow, without a huge tap into the national health service budget.
Of course all members of staff at whatever level, including doctors and nurses, should wash their hands, but recent hospital practice in my area has been reported to me. For example, to clean the floors, the cleaners have moved things from the floor on to the beds. Anyone who knows how infections travel and how germs are passed on knows that as much distance as possible needs to be kept between the patients and certain things that could come into contact with them, particularly those with open wounds post-surgery. Basic things like that are important.
Nurses have been observed putting things into pedal bins on wards without using the foot pedal. They have been using their hands to open bins and put things inside. They then touch things that come into direct contact with the patients. For years and years, people of all political persuasions have demanded that Hattie

1051
Jacques return and that matrons are reinstalled on our hospital wards. I agree with that, and if I were not so busy I would offer myself to the Government as someone who could go round and put best practice in place.
The cost need not be great. It is a question of good management and good supervision and it could greatly reduce the number of hospital-acquired infections. This is a serious matter. Without mentioning names, I have no doubt, having read the medical records, that following routine orthopaedic surgery one of my constituents acquired methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in hospital, and, as a result, he is now confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady. She said at the beginning of her remarks that her proposal could be achieved without a great tap on NHS resources. Does she agree that the National Audit Office report on this issue suggested that up to 5,000 lives a year could be saved in this area, not by putting one tap on NHS resources but by putting one tap on each ward, so that nurses were able to wash their hands each time they touched a different patient?
Mrs. Browning: Absolutely. Those practical measures are so simple and low-budget that I do not know why someone does not get a grip and implement them tomorrow.
MRSA is a killer, as are some of the other hospital-acquired infections. I do not agree with those who say that people who acquire an infection in hospital or whose treatment in a public service causes them pain, injury or even death should not have the same rules applied to them in terms of compensation. I realise that vexatious complainants exist, and that there must be a sense of balance in terms of the public purse to make sure that people do not bring forward negligence and compensation claims that create an industry that benefits only lawyers who want to fly kites, but as in any other business, professionals must be accountable for the work that they do and the service that they provide. People who, in all innocence, go into a hospital expecting routine treatment and come out with a different problem that affects the rest of their life or even kills them should not have to put their houses on the line to battle through legal action for fair and just compensation. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
3.23 pm
John Cryer: Like most other hon. Members who have spoken today, I want to raise one or two constituency issues.
Problems related to antisocial and criminal behaviour have occurred in the Elm Park area of my constituency, near a tube station, which is the main issue. A few months ago, a constituent of mine called Chris Ingrouille was almost beaten to death in the Elm Park area by a group of people who seemed to have travelled into the constituency by tube. My point is that whenever I use Elm Park tube station, which is on the District line in outer east London, the barriers are always open. The station is either completely unstaffed or there is just one member of staff sitting in the kiosk by herself or himself.
1052
If there is antisocial behaviour in the station, which reverberates around the area outside, that individual is not in a position to try to prevent it.
What sticks in my throat is that, in a long correspondence going back many months and probably even a year or two, London Underground Ltd. seems to have an obsession with trying to convince me—and, I assume, other London Members who have had this problem, particularly in outer east London—that the station is adequately staffed for, say, between 96 per cent. and 97 per cent. of the time. Clearly, that is mendacious, according to my experiences and those of my constituents. Conjoined with that is the fact that, often, trains travelling out of central London, particularly late at night, stop at either Barking or Dagenham East, as I know full well. Travelling back late at night to my constituency and my borough, I have often been turfed out of a tube train at 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock at night at either Barking or Dagenham East. That raises a safety fear, as women in particular—and, to some extent, men—travelling back late at night and abandoned on a platform for perhaps half an hour at Dagenham or Barking could be left vulnerable to attack. At times in the past they have been attacked.
The second constituency issue that I want to raise is that of the c2c railway line, which I have raised probably two or three times on the Floor of the House in previous Adjournment debates. The line runs from Fenchurch Street in central London out to Shoeburyness; at least, it should run from Fenchurch Street, but, late at night, after 10 o'clock, the trains run from Liverpool Street. After 10 o'clock, therefore, people catching trains to, say, Upminster, Shoeburyness or West Ham, must go to Liverpool Street. Occasionally, however, c2c, in its wisdom, decides to run all its trains from Fenchurch Street, so people arrive at Liverpool Street to find out that trains are running not out of Liverpool Street but out of Fenchurch Street.
I recently received a letter from one Dominic Booth, the managing director of London Lines, the parent company of c2c, which contains this explanation:
"The reasons for the arrangements are the need to maintain the line between Fenchurch Street and Lime House, an intensively used stretch of line."

Well, it is not the only intensively used stretch of line in the country—I do not remember British Rail or its successor companies telling the nation that they had to start running trains out of St. Pancras instead of King's Cross because the railway lines outside King's Cross were pretty intensively used and they had to do maintenance work on that stretch of line. It is an exercise in mendacity. Recently, a report by the London Transport Users Committee made it clear that a majority of those passengers surveyed wanted all trains to run out of Fenchurch Street, but I do not seem to be able to get an adequate answer from London Lines, c2c or the managing director, Dominic Booth. That is another lesson arising from the folly of privatising railways. I want to make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that we should renationalise railways without delay and without compensation.
Bob Spink: Dominic Booth has told me that the reason why c2c switches to the Liverpool Street line occasionally is to maintain driver familiarity and training on that line, so that when they need to switch, the drivers are able to do so.
John Cryer: Mr. Booth gave me an entirely different reason. There we go—let us renationalise the lot. Do not just play around with Railtrack. Take it all back into public ownership. That is what we want.
The next issue that I wish to touch on briefly is policing in the borough of Havering, which I represent. I have outlined before on the Floor of the House the problem faced by the people in my area—particularly those in Rainham, Elm Park and Hornchurch—because of the number of night clubs in Romford. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) is in his place, and he will be aware that night club capacity in Romford is between 12,000 and 14,000, which is the biggest in the south-east of England outside the west end. That draws police officers away from other parts of the borough and particularly from my constituency. The rest of the borough is bereft of policing. If there is an emergency late on a Friday or Saturday night in my constituency or that of the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), there are often not sufficient police officers to deal with it.
The Government should seriously consider charging night clubs for the policing of the disturbances that emanate from their premises. I know that legislation is coming up to cover such matters, but we should tell night clubs that we will charge them for the 60 or 70 police officers who are needed to deal with the criminal and antisocial disorder that emanates from their premises. Police and local authorities should also be able to tell night clubs that they will withdraw their licence. That could be done for a trial period of two or three weeks. We could then see how the night clubs get on, and we could return their licence to them provided that they behave more decently and keep an eye on the behaviour of the people who use the club.
The length of GP lists in Havering, Barking and Dagenham is another constituency issue. My health area tends to have fairly lengthy lists, and there are historical reasons for that. There is no doubt that more resources are going into primary care, but we do not seem to be attracting the younger GPs that we need. We have many older GPs who are coming up for retirement. Many of them have done a very good job, but they obviously want to retire at a decent age. Many of them will retire within the next five years, and that will present us with a serious problem. I hope that the Department of Health will deal with that specific problem in the Barking, Havering and Brentwood health areas.
I recently tabled a written question to the Department of Health about the length of GP lists, but it refused to provide me with the details. It said:
"We are not able to provide information on which individual practices have list sizes higher than the national average and what the size of the list is in each case. The GP census data held by the Department is collected for the purposes of research and statistics, as defined by section 33 of the Data Protection Act 1998. As such, we are unable to release identifiable data on GPs where it is possible the data could be used for purposes other than research and statistics."
I assume from that answer that the civil servants at the Department of Health think that I have an ulterior motive in asking for the information. I want to use it for research and statistics, but they seem to think that I have a wicked ulterior motive and that I might use it for something else. That demonstrates an element of contempt among senior civil servants in the Department of Health for elected Members of Parliament.
1054
I know that elected Members are a bit of a pain and that they put down awkward questions that need answering. They can make life difficult. However, such questions should be answered. To hide behind the Data Protection Act is absolutely absurd. I want the answers to those questions for the benefit of my constituents. I represent them and they send me here. I hope that the Department of Health will take notice of that.
I wish to raise the local and national issue of medals for the servicemen and women who served in Suez between 1951 and 1954. [Interruption.] That got a cheer from the Liberal Democrats. There is a first time for everything. I raise the issue because I recently attended the unveiling of a memorial at the Larkhill base near Salisbury, with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and the former Member of Parliament, Geoffrey Johnson Smith, who campaigned for a long time on the issue. It was a unique ceremony because the plaque is to the people who served in Suez between 1951 and 1954 and not just to those who were killed.
Those who served in Suez in 1956 received a campaign medal at the time, but those who served there between 1951 and 1954 did not receive any sort of campaign medal. I have many constituents who are still around and who are still campaigning strongly. They want that omission rectified. Historically, we do not treat our former servicemen and women particularly well in this country. The sovereign's head on campaign medals from past eras often dates the medal at 20 or 30 years after the campaign took place. In this case, the campaign took place nearly 50 years ago. About 200 servicemen were killed in Suez in the early 1950s, so the idea that has been put around that it was not much of a conflict is illusory. It was a serious conflict, but international sensibilities at the time meant that it could not be recognised as such and that a campaign medal could not be issued to the people who served there. That point should be recognised.
The issue is now before the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. I hope that it gets on with its consideration—it has had enough time to do so—and issues a medal to put right a folly of many years ago. It just remains for me to wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the servants and Officers of the House a good Christmas.
3.34 pm
Bob Russell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) on his comments about the medal and hope that he achieves his aim. I also support what the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who made an excellent speech, said about the Jubilee medal for prison officers. I hope that the Minister will take on board the needs of those in the retired officer corps who served king, queen and country for 30, 40 or 50 years. Technically, they are civil servants, but they must be the only civil servants who serve in uniform. It was pretty mean minded that those people and the prison officers were deemed unsuitable recipients of the Queen's Jubilee medal.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and hope that the Minister and his colleagues take on board my concerns about important issues to do with roads in my constituency. Perhaps in the spirit of joined-up government we will get the results that the people of Colchester want.

1055
Those of us who represent constituencies in the east and south of England know that for the last half century successive Governments have decreed that our communities must take increasing numbers of new populations. The only question is whether local councils are allowed the freedom to decide roughly where the new developments take place. The county of Essex has had more than its fair share of urbanisation. Indeed, more land has been urbanised in Britain's oldest town in the past 40 years than in the previous 2,000 years, from the time when the Romans arrived and made Colchester the capital. That cannot continue, but if we do release additional land for development, we should let the local community determine where it should be.
The problem is that central Government are delaying the connection of a road link between Colchester's northern approach road and the Al2. The developer and the Highways Agency are unable to agree where to put the junction. The irony is that the main developer is the national health service and the second largest landowner is Colchester borough council. The greatest length of the road is virtually complete and only the last section leading to the A12 has to be finished. In answer to a parliamentary question in July, I was assured that just a few of the finer details needed to be resolved, but when I asked a virtually identical question two weeks ago—some five months later—I was told that those issues have still to be resolved. That comes at the end of a 10-year debate that has been going on since the land was released.
The project is important to the NHS because it affects a former mental institution, which is part of a large landholding in north Colchester. There are also massive new developments in the garrison and the Hythe urban regeneration area, so not just one part of town is affected. The borough has carefully planned where it must absorb the new housing and other development that successive Governments have said we must have.
With the closure of large mental institutions under previous Conservative Governments and the Labour Government—there is no political divide on that—the NHS has had to dispose of those institutions, realise the assets and reinvest the money in the health service. The NHS, which is one arm of government, has to sell off surplus land and reinvest the money, but the Highways Agency, which is another arm of government, has not reached an agreement with the developer, which is the NHS or whatever the privatised wing of the landholding part of the NHS is called. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to get to grips with that. The big loser is the development in that part of north Colchester. If it does not go ahead there, it will be moved somewhere else. As we will get it one way or another, we might as well have the development where it will benefit, rather than disbenefit, the community.

I have mentioned the borough council and other landowners. Some of us would say that if the scheme does not proceed, an even bigger loser would be Colchester United football club. The new stadium for the club is an integral part of the development. In a week when two smaller clubs have gone into administration—Port Vale and York City—I am sure the Minister will appreciate that the smaller clubs need all the help that they can get. We do not want to be kicked in the teeth.
1056
I take the opportunity to place on record my appreciation to the chairman of Colchester United, Mr. Peter Heard, who by my reading of the balance sheet must be putting in about £10,000 a week to keep the club going. As a keen Ipswich Town supporter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that my club can survive only by moving to a new purpose-built ground with modern facilities. I urge the Minister to take the message back to his colleagues that this is one road junction that the local community wants.
I move on to a road junction that the community does not want. Although this may be a constituency issue, I ask hon. Members to listen carefully to what could well be a national precedent if the junction is allowed to proceed. Those of us who represent urban constituencies can visualise our neighbourhoods as areas of streets built 100 years or so ago, mainly terraced or semi-detached houses close together, some with small front gardens and some without, but in virtually every case no off-street car parking.
I have an area of Colchester known as New Town ward, which I had the honour to represent on the council for 31 years. In this area there are backland allotments that can be reached only by a narrow track. Vehicle access to serve an estate on this privately owned allotment area is being acquired by stealth—that is the only way to describe it—by a local property speculator. The only way to gain access is down the track, which of course does not meet highway standards. The speculator has come up with a cunning wheeze to overcome that slight problem.
Up till the summer of this year, every time an application was made for residential development on that backland, Colchester borough council rightly refused it for a variety of reasons, one of which was inadequate access. The solution is simple, my friends. The developer has comes up with a scheme that encloses half the width of the road in front of a dozen or more houses, turning a two-way road width into a single width, and builds out the pavement where the narrow access is, in front of houses on either side, thus creating the sightline that he cannot otherwise obtain.
Those of us who have been in local government long enough know that usually, when a developer wishes to develop a piece of land that he does not own, he has to buy up property to get the sightline, and he has to acquire what is known as the ransom strip. The value of the ransom strip, according to a formula, can be anything between a third and a half of the value of the development land. In this case, the developer, with the acquiescence of the local highway authority—I hope that that will change, because of the national precedent that would be set if the scheme were allowed—is acquiring part of the Queen's highway at nil cost to himself, other than the cost of the roadworks. That is land that would cost more than £600,000 to buy. That is the low estimate; other estimates put the value at nearer £1 million.
Surely it cannot be right that the Queen's highway—public land—can be appropriated in this way by a private developer in order to secure access to his land by taking the road from in front of other people's houses, which he does not own. The national precedent is such that I have already been approached by the PR consultant of one of the national building companies, who said, "Please let me know what the outcome is.

1057
I think my clients would be interested." I bet they would. All of us who represent constituencies with such backland development must be fearful.
If appropriating the public road is now part and parcel of what a property developer can do in Colchester, hon. Members can rest assured that the big boys will do it elsewhere in the country. It is a worrying precedent, and I urge the Minister to make sure that the matter receives a full public inquiry. I am talking not about the principle of development on the allotments, but about a private developer appropriating the public highway to secure a development, which he could not otherwise do because he does not own all the land or have control over it.
3.45 pm
Ross Cranston: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). He and I worked on a serious issue that arose in his constituency, and although I was not able to produce a result that was completely satisfactory to him, the only fault that I could see in the hon. Gentleman was his misjudgment in changing political parties. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Gentleman down his highways and byways, but he has raised a serious issue about the appropriation of public land.
I want to talk about corporate governance, because it is an issue that we rarely address in the House. There is an inverse relationship between economic success and the exposure of corporate wrongdoing. When times are good, the forces leading to the discovery of wrongdoing are weak, but with an economic slowdown, bad practice comes to light. In extreme cases when businesses become insolvent, outsiders such as liquidators start to pick over the bones, and sometimes the carcase is not a pretty sight.
Let me begin with the assertion that this country cannot be complacent about our standards of corporate governance. When the wrongdoings of Enron and WorldCom came to light in the United States, the reaction in some parts was that this country did not face the same problems. For example, our auditors did not have a tick-the-box approach, but adopted a more rounded assessment of a company's health. That might be true, but it is not an excuse for inaction.
We have a great deal to learn from the United States in adopting good standards of corporate governance. They have thought about it more than we have. The American Law Institute's two-volume "Principles of Corporate Governance" contains a great deal of valuable learning. The Americans also have much more practical experience than we have. After all, they introduced anti-competition legislation more than a century ago in the Sherman Act of the 1890s. They were the first to introduce a sophisticated securities regulation regime in the 1930s. They introduced a foreign corrupt practices Act when we in Europe had barely thought about the problem. Now, they have the Sabanes-Oxley Act.
Unlike the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), I come to praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, not to
1058
bury her. She has given a lead in addressing problems that have arisen in this country as a result of Enron and WorldCom. She established the Co-ordinating Group on Audit and Accountancy to look at matters such as auditor independence, financial reporting and auditing standards. Although an interim report has been published, the final report will not be published until early next year and I hope that it will address matters such as audit firm rotation.
Nor has the rest of Government machinery been idle: the Financial Services Authority has been reviewing the listing rules and addressing auditor independence issues, and the Office of Fair Trading has looked at competition. For example, there was concern about the increased concentration and supply of audit and accountancy services. The OFT inquired into that, but has found nothing to act on for the present. As a result of the OFT report on competition in the professions, certain anti-competitive practices of the accounting and auditor professional bodies have been removed.
Business itself has not been idle, either. The Business and Society report published earlier this year—the second report on corporate social responsibility—pointed out that CSR has become part of the culture of many organisations. I am not one of those who will not give credit where it is due. When corporations adopt good practices, we should praise them for doing so. For example, in respect of financial services, the so-called FORGE group has produced guidance on corporate social responsibility management and reporting. The Pensions and Investment Research Consultancy has led the campaign for more independent directors of companies to run audit committees. Again, we can learn from the American experience, as the most recent PIRC report pointed out that the New York stock exchange regulations are tougher in requiring a fully independent board. Incidentally, the PIRC reports also provide a useful monitor on the cash emoluments of directors, to which I shall return in a moment.
However, while I applaud business initiatives in this area, we also need legislative action. Without basic legislative standards, there will be a temptation to slackness and sin to which some will succumb. On general legislative standards, I shall start with company law. Our company law has been built up by an accretion of provisions over the past century and a half and contains arcane provisions on, for example, the reduction of corporate capital and financial assistance to companies in the purchase of their own shares. Lawyers such as me have made money out of advising on those provisions, but frankly, they do not contribute to economic progress and a thorough review is needed.
I welcome the first stage of that process as it is set out in the White Paper "Modernising Company Law", which was published earlier this year, and I should like to flag up two provisions in that regard. On the disclosure of information, there is a proposal for an operating and financial review that would set out the environmental and social impact of companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) and other hon. Friends have tried to refine that proposal, but I welcome it in principle. In addition, the White Paper talks about codifying directors' duties. Although there is some ambivalence among corporate and company lawyers about that proposal, I certainly

1059
support it. I also support extension of the duty of directors to all of a company's stakeholders and not simply a limited number.
Historically, our company law has tended to emphasise the disclosure philosophy—the notion that, if information is disclosed to shareholders and others, it will act as incentive to good practice. However, we need enforceable standards as well. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) spoke about the relationships between franchisers and franchisees in the business community. We need enforceable standards in that area. On phoenix companies, I am sure that many hon. Members have had the same experience at the consumer end of the market and have seen companies come along, perpetrate bad practices and then dissolve themselves. Often, the directors will start another corporation the next day to carry on the same practices, so we also need controls in that area.
I should like to spend a little time on three specific areas of direct regulation. First, let me give two statistics on director remuneration. In 2000, directors' pay rose on average by about 28 per cent., while shareholder return fell by 11.5 per cent. That does not go down well with the public. Moreover, in the past 18 months or so, we have seen examples of directors receiving golden goodbyes—in some cases, they have been paid as much as £7 million—after presiding over spectacular corporate failures. Marconi is the most often cited example of a company in which employees have lost their jobs, but directors have walked away with very substantial sums. We need to do something about that.
Earlier this year, the directors' remuneration report regulations went through the House. They take a naming and shaming approach to directors' remuneration. The idea is that the performance conditions for directors' pay will be disclosed and that performance graphs will be produced for shareholders. The latter will also have some say about the report on remuneration. However, in a spirit of seasonal cross-party agreement, I welcome the principle behind the private Member's Bill that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) promoted. He proposes to deal with the problem of directors walking away with golden goodbyes by providing for the law to override the contracts that may legally entitle them to such a payment.
Secondly, I want to consider corporate killing. Approximately 18 months ago, on 10 July 2001, I obtained an Adjournment debate on the topic. Several hon. Members have mentioned the issue, which arose in the context of catastrophic events such as the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, the King's Cross fire, and the rail crashes at Clapham, Southall and Ladbroke Grove.
The law of corporate manslaughter cannot deal with the matter. Perhaps it can do so in the context of small companies, when directors can be identified with their behaviour. However, it cannot deal with large companies. The Law Commission reported on the matter in 1996 and the Labour party's manifesto commits us to a law on corporate killing. I appreciate the difficulties; for example, if corporations are guilty of the offence, does liability follow for directors? There are also other practical problems. However, it is high time that we took action on an ageing Law Commission report.
1060
Thirdly, I want to consider whistleblowing. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, in which I played a small part, provides the country with an adequate la w. It began as a private Member's Bill, which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) promoted. Consequently, we have an advanced legal framework to deal with whistleblowing. However, the practice does not appear to be adequate in some private and public sector organisations. If PIDA is invoked, it has failed, because it is designed to change the culture of businesses and public bodies so that they welcome employees' disclosure of practices that may lead to fraud, health and safety offences or other wrongdoing.
I want to raise a specific case, which I would like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to examine. It involves British Transport Police, for which I understand the Strategic Rail Authority is responsible. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was recently abandoned and the case is therefore no longer sub judice. I have read the two employment tribunal decisions and that of the employment appeal tribunal on the case. Something about it has featured in the press, and I know little beyond what I have read.
It appears that a lawyer called Irene Bhadresa blew the whistle on an inspector in British Transport Police who had thrown 75 live prosecution files in the bin. I understand that he resigned from the force before disciplinary action was taken. Meanwhile, Miss Bhadresa was dismissed. British Transport Police ultimately made a substantial payment to settle her claim. In fact, The Guardian reported that it was over £250,000, so clearly BTP was wrong to dismiss her.
As important as that individual case is what was uncovered about a force order promulgated by BTP, which apparently required all members of that force to inform their commanders if they were to give evidence in support of other members of the force or BTP employees such as Irene Bhadresa and that any character evidence given must not bring into question the integrity of members of the force. Is that general order still in force? We in the House recently legislated to bring police officers within the protection of PIDA. If there is such a general order still in force, it seems to me that it is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of what we, as legislators, have said.
For me, there remains only to wish season's greetings to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to all those who work in the House and give us such good service as Members of Parliament.
4 pm
Alistair Burt: I am pleased to have the opportunity to put to the House before it adjourns a series of issues that face my county of Bedfordshire and my constituency of North-East Bedfordshire, some of which have wider ramifications.
We have all listened with admiration to a number of colleagues who have spoken this afternoon. We shall remember the passion and honesty with which the hon. Members for Hornchurch (John Cryer) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) put their cases. We shall remember also the remarks of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who is still in his place, who spoke with apparent warmth and relish of the time when the police, under a Liberal Government, took truncheons to

1061
pensioners! We shall certainly remember the moment when the hon. Gentleman was stopped in his tracks by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who put to him a point illustrating something that remains shocking to members of the public, although it is familiar to Members from every other party in the House who have trodden the streets in a by-election: the Liberal party says and does one thing in one place, but says and does something totally different in another.
I do not envy the Minister, who has to deal with all the points raised by colleagues this afternoon. I know that if he cannot deal with certain points in detail, he will pass our comments on to the relevant Minister. I would appreciate him doing so in the cases that I shall raise. May I start with matters affecting the rural parts of my constituency of North-East Bedfordshire, which is predominantly rural?
I pay tribute to the work done by my parish councils, and I am sure that we would all do the same for the parish councils in our constituencies. I have met mine during the year and dealt with a number of matters on their behalf. Will the Minister pass on to his colleagues parish councils' growing frustration in dealing with the bureaucracy and extra regulation under which they are being forced to work?
Parish councils are staffed by valuable local social servants who are doing their best around our country. Their responsibilities are not enormous, but they carry them out conscientiously, so asking them to live under a greater burden of regulation, scrutiny and audit is probably overdoing it. Will the Minister say how many parish councillors have resigned over the past year as a result of the introduction of new regulatory measures? We would all be grateful if he took back a note saying that we could do with rather less regulation in this area, provided that there is sufficient to enable parish councils to do their duty. Perhaps the Government could ease up in certain areas.
A particular issue relating to youth provision has been brought to me by Mr. Andrew Gell, chairman of Riseley parish council. The council is looking to help youngsters in the village to establish a youth club. It has been in touch with Bedfordshire county council, which says that it would like to help, but that, owing to the provisions of the Connexions service, which puts the emphasis on youngsters aged between 13 and 19, resources for those who are younger are stretched.
Accordingly, I would be grateful if the Minister considered passing on to his colleagues the information that a number of other areas may find themselves similarly stretched. In developing youth provision through Connexions, will the Government ensure that much-needed support for younger people is not lost? Of course, the youngsters whom we may want to look after most could best be dealt with rather earlier. I would be grateful if the Minister took that issue on for me.
As I am sure the Minister knows, over the last six years some 67,000 jobs have been lost in the United Kingdom's farming industry, and my constituency is no exception in that regard. May I ask the Government again to bear in mind the difficulties caused to livestock farmers by the 20-day rule, which was introduced at the
1062
time of the foot and mouth outbreak but is still in operation. Inability to move stock quickly is a real problem for many small farmers, whose livelihoods are being affected. In September, the Farmers Guardian quoted Lord Whitty as saying that parts of the farming industry could be wiped out if the rule continued; yet it does continue. I know that it is under review, but the farming community would welcome any action the Minister could take to hasten that review.
Let me make another plea for the rural parts of my constituency. I support the demand for broadband access in as many rural areas as possible. BT recently brought the service to my constituency through its exchange in Sandy, and I went to see what was happening during the recess, but other parts of the constituency are not so fortunate. Broadband is particularly relevant to businesses and agricultural communities that are spread out in our rural areas. It could make a real difference to them, and anything the Government could do to help promote broadband would be welcome.
Bedfordshire is a small county, but it is being asked to take on more and more housing without regard to the consequent problems relating to infrastructure and congestion. Only this week, following a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport, I had an opportunity to raise the whole issue of joined-up government. I asked the Secretary of State why his congestion plans and railway plans—and the targets containing them—could be torn up like so much so much waste paper, when Bedfordshire and other counties were being asked to stick rigidly to Government targets requiring them to accept more and more housing. Bedfordshire has been due to take 50,000 new homes in the 20 years between 1991 and 2011. The Deputy Prime Minister suggested in July that the figure would be increased again, and the county council was told recently that as a result of the Milton Keynes study the county might be expected to take yet more housing.
When I mentioned the connection between increased building, more housing and congestion, the Secretary of State declined to answer. He said it was a matter for the Minister responsible for housing. He may not be able to see the connection between increased building, more housing and congestion, and he may not feel that he ought to answer questions such as mine—but the rest of us see the connection. Let me again make a plea for joined-up government, and ask this Minister to deal with such issues.
The county is greatly stretched. Its health services are stretched, and its police force is stretched. There will be more congestion, and more pressure on social services. There will be an impact on the services that the council can provide. Will the Minister convey my view that if the Government find it possible to relax their plans when they are under pressure, councils in a similar position may be able to relax the Government's housing plans for them?
I thank the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), who visited my constituency this week to open the Clapham bypass, for the courtesy he showed. May I repeat something that was said at the time, although perhaps not in the best possible circumstances? Will the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of State, Department of Transport, consider the problems affecting areas of new development where the provision

1063
of roads has been tied to planning gain? In my constituency, where new housing is planned, a road that will act as a major link between two important areas will be begun only when 750 houses have been built. The section 106 provisions put a huge amount of power in the hands of the developers. What happens in such cases is that the houses are built and the amount of traffic increases before a new road is available to support it.
Bedford borough council has suggested to the Government a provision under which they, the Government, could provide up-front funding for necessary road schemes and then claim back the money. That would release funds for the much-needed road, and the Government would not lose any money in the long term because they could recoup it. I wrote to Lord Rooker in September, and he said that the matter was under consideration, but did not give a favourable response to what I thought was an extremely good idea. Could the Minister refer this suggestion back to his colleagues for further consideration, because many areas would benefit enormously from such a provision?
I received a letter this morning from the Secretary of State for Health, who informed me that Bedford hospital NHS trust, which had been zero-rated in July, had made satisfactory progress in the months since. I pay tribute to the hospital, which I visited this week, and to the chief executive and chairman, Andrew Reed and Helen Nellis, for the progress that they are making. The zero star rating was unfortunate, but the response of all hospital staff was to roll up their collective sleeves and see what they could do to improve services. I am grateful for that. It would assist an area where there is an increasing number of people and the health service is fighting under a deficit if those factors could be taken into account when targets are set. Many health workers work extremely hard, but sometimes the Government do not take all those problems into account when setting targets for them.
I remind the House that it is almost 12 months since the incident at Yarlswood in my constituency. The asylum centre was badly damaged by fire, and more than 300 people could have lost their lives. The Government instituted an inquiry, which began in the summer. It reported to the Home Secretary in September, but since then we have seen nothing of the report. The Home Secretary knows that court cases are pending, and we all appreciate the fact that certain material in the inquiry may be held secret until those cases have finished. However, the House badly needs to have other information that may not be pertinent to criminal cases. What were the reasons behind the decision not to fit sprinklers in the building that burned down? What was the reasoning that led to the change in the nature of detainees being held at Yarlswood, contrary to the assurances given to those who live around the area?
The Home Office has compounded the problem by announcing in October that it intends to allow new detainees to go to the remaining Yarlswood building, which is of the same construction as the one that burned to the ground and which will be reopened in April. How safe will those detainees be? How safe will the rest of us be, given that they are going back into the centre before we have any information from the inquiries into why the other building burned down?
1064
The Minister should ask the Home Secretary to consider the matters that I have raised. I appreciate that some parts of the report may be kept secret, but other information needs to be brought out into the open sooner.
Jeremy Corbyn: What the hon. Gentleman says about Yarlswood is important. Many Labour Members are equally concerned about why the fire occurred, what the circumstances were and the terrible danger that many of those people suffered as a result of the way in which the fire was dealt with. I am not critical of the fire service, but of others, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I agree with him that the centre should not be reopened.
Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. His hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has also taken a keen interest in the issues surrounding Yarlswood and the implications for my constituents. Unless further information is available to the public, why should the centre be reopened? For the reasons I have given, I should be grateful if the Minister would take those matters back to the Home Secretary.
It only remains for me to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the debate, and to wish you, your colleagues and all hon. Members the very best for Christmas and the new year.
4.15 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: In the five and a half years during which we have had a Labour Government and I have been a Member of Parliament, have the lives of the people in Hemel Hempstead improved? It is important to deal with this question, because if the answer is no, there is an agenda there that the Government must address. Even if the answer is only "a bit", that still leaves an agenda for them to address, because perhaps their ambition is for life for my constituents to improve rather more than just "a bit".
Of the observations that we have heard so far, I was particularly struck by those of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), who commented extensively on the Government's achievements, such as low unemployment. On the employment chart, Hemel Hempstead is in the top group, with consistently high employment. On looking at such a constituency, we would say that the Government have done very well by these people, and that they have done very well by the Government. This is leafy Hertfordshire, where life is clearly good, jobs are readily available, house prices are rocketing, and so on.
An occasional visitor to Hemel Hempstead who gets out at the train station might be a bit surprised to discover that it is about a mile from the town centre, and they might wonder quite how they are going to get there. On leaving the station, they will discover, in the middle of the town centre, a field that often contains rare breeds of cow. It is a lovely field that belongs to the publicly owned Boxmoor Trust, and which is part of 411 acres of beautiful land. Among other things, the Duke of Burgundy fritillary butterfly is being introduced into a field of wild cowslips, away from plodding feet. So Hemel Hempstead is a lovely place, which has an arguably high starting-point, but perhaps the question whether the lives of its people have improved is one that is none the less still worth asking.

1065
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale rightly said that particular progress has been made in primary schools. On visiting the primary schools in my constituency, I am struck by the sea change that has taken place between 1997 and now. However, it is worth reflecting on how that has come about. Three mechanisms have produced those changes, the first of which is a commitment to quality in numeracy and literacy schemes in particular. Secondly, there has been a commitment to make modest improvements to Hertfordshire county council to help it to perform its functions—they are many but often unsung—and to do a good job. Indeed, it has achieved an excellent rating for local authorities.
Thirdly, and crucially, it has been recognised that head teachers need a fair degree of autonomy in the performance of their functions, as well as the resources to exercise that autonomy. I disagree profoundly with the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), who pooh-poohed the extra money that the Government are providing for services. Money is a necessary condition—but not, of course, a sufficient one—for the kind of improvements that we have seen in our primary schools.
However, the issue is not simply that we have had the opportunity to improve some things. I have sometimes pointed out in the House that the Government are insufficiently mindful of philosophy, and the Prime Minister has sometimes been inclined to disagree with me. I want to bring two smidgens of philosophy to what otherwise might seem a rather parochial fixation on my constituency. There are two laws of which the Prime Minister and the Government in general should be much more mindful, the first of which is the law of protracted time. It sometimes takes time to develop good ideas; and when one has developed such an idea and decided to implement it, it sometimes takes time to get it to make a real difference to the lives and the lived experience of the people whom we are trying to represent. The bigger the idea, the longer it takes to have an effect. For instance, the splendid idea of curbing disorderly behaviour with antisocial behaviour orders in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was supported by many hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary once asked me what I wanted for my constituency, and I told him that I wanted the number of antisocial behaviour orders handed out to be multiplied by a factor of 10. That would be a start on improving something that oppresses the day-to-day existence of many people.
The antisocial behaviour order was a good idea, but how far has it got? Senior police officers embraced the concept, but constituents are still faced with foul and irresponsible behaviour that makes their lives a misery, and local police officers say that there is nothing to be done. The original idea has not percolated through to the consciousness of those responsible for its implementation. As a result, constituents' lives have not been improved.
Hon. Members of all parties have said that people want more police on the beat. I said as much to an officer the other day, and I was given the following statistic—an officer could walk the beat for 80 years before coming across a crime being committed. That may be true, but the idea was less to do with crime than with intelligence, understanding and working with communities. It was
1066
intended to root out a person's capacity for crime before it was translated into behaviour that wrecked people's lives. The idea exists, but it has not yet got through and effected the change that was intended.
Another law of a philosophical character deserves the Government's consideration—the law of unintended consequences. The Government have had good ideas in many areas. They must be frustrated that they have had comparatively little effect, even when combined with significant resources, but some of the ideas need to be questioned.
It is a very good idea, is it not, for people to have very high-quality health care? Of course it is, but implementing that idea a little too rigorously means that inspectors are sent in who find that the quality is not excellent. The result is that the facility involved is shut down and, instead of there being health provision that may be ropey but which gets people by, there is no provision at all. Setting standards too high lowers overall provision so that people end up with lower-quality provision. That is a most unexpected and unintended consequence.
I advert to that idea with some passion, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been my ally in my attempts to prevent the closure of Hemel Hempstead maternity hospital, which was only five years old when I was first elected in 1997. It is being closed because its special-care baby unit was one nurse short of its full staff complement. I was told that it was difficult to recruit nurses in Hertfordshire and that London weighting meant that people wanted to go and work in the capital. The result is that my constituents face a unique problem in that their maternity unit, even though it is so new, is to be shut down. That is in leafy Hertfordshire, and it is not a good experience for my constituents. A petition has been sent to Downing street and one has been placed before the House, with signatures from 88,000 people. That is what I call a community concern. Three weeks after the second of those petitions got the Prime Minister's personal support, the special care baby unit was shut down on the grounds that it gave cause for concern.
A month after the unit was shut down, two babies died in adjacent Watford general hospital in circumstances that I can only describe as appalling and exhibiting the utmost neglect. Staff there were inundated by the 3,000 maternity cases that had been shunted out of Hemel Hempstead. This is not a small maternity unit, but a middle-ranking one in terms of maternity provision. So their experience is worse.
Some 88,000 people have expressed their concern—four times the number who were wise enough to vote for me in the last election. It is a massive number. There is a sense in the community that sometimes the Government get an idea such as introducing higher standards for health and implement it in a way that has the unintended consequence of producing a lower standard of health. The Government must sometimes do more than introduce interesting initiatives. They must do more than have a good idea and back it with money. They must also realise that they have to work effectively with the people who will implement their good idea. The example of schools is vital. Many head teachers are now giving competent people the capacity to exercise their judgment over resources.

1067
The worst examples in my constituency concern the way in which the Government relate to local government. I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members will agree with me here. The Minister responsible for local government is the Minister for hard sums because local government finance is so complicated. Every time the hard sum is calculated the Minister tells me from the Dispatch Box that we have had an increase in resources in real terms, yet the situation seems to get worse.
The only community provision in my area is a venue for rock concerts. A thousand kids went there on Friday and Saturday nights to hear the sort of music that only kids can listen to, and it has been knocked down. It is tempting to say that it is because of the Conservative-controlled council, but in fact the Government are still saying to local authorities that giving them extra resources means that they have a lot more extra things on which to spend the money. As a result, it is hard to see a real-terms gain. A 4 per cent. increase also means new duties such as having a community safety partnership that brings the police and the local authority together. That is a great idea, but it is wrapped up in the local authority settlement; it costs extra resources and the authority does not know where it will get the money for the other duties. My police authority is pleased with its new duties but has pointed out that it needed a lot more than 4 per cent. just to keep the show on the road.
I have taken my quarter of an hour, and that is probably as much as one should impose on the House. I conclude with the thought that the Government need to attend more to the submissions that so many Members have made today about how these matters impact on their area. Hemel Hempstead is in leafy Hertfordshire, but it is a new town and many parts of it are crumbling. The town has a wonderful environment and unemployment is low, but there are major pockets of poverty and deprivation. Its hospital is under great threat, even though the figures may look good on the charts.
On balance, despite everything that I have said, there has been an advance, but storm clouds are gathering. That could mean that when we hold next year's Christmas debate, I shall have to say that things are worse. The Government should attend to those storm clouds by paying more attention to the laws of protracted time and unintended consequences.
4.30 pm
Mr. David Amess: The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) spoke a great deal of common sense. He is a Government supporter, so I hope that his Government will listen to him.
I want to raise a number of matters before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess. However, before I do so I want to clear the air about something that has been troubling me. The last time I spoke in this place, I said that I and a number of colleagues would be examining the Swedish model.
Several hon. Members—whether deliberately or not—misinterpreted my words, but I can now report to the House that we have examined the Swedish model and found it somewhat wanting. I refer to the debate on the Second Reading of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill and the Government's decision to
1068
adopt proposals based on the Swedish model. The week before last, we discussed the matter at a meeting of the Select Committee on Health and the House will be interested to learn that, after two years, the Swedish Government are quite concerned about their solution to the problem of delayed discharges. It does not seem to be having the desired effect; beds are still being blocked in Swedish hospitals. I hope that the Government will reflect on their ideas, as they certainly did not work in the country from whence they originally came.
Several hon. Members have mentioned crime. If only I had a penny for every time that I have listened to Members on both sides of the House say that there was too much crime. What is happening about the problem? What are the solutions? The crackpot ideas for dealing with truancy are certainly not going to help one iota. They can only make things more difficult for the police.
Southend is no different from any other area. My constituents complain that youths gather outside their houses and disturb their general well-being. Such youngsters know their rights only too well so little can be done about them. What is the answer?
Even hon. Members who are more into high technology than me want to see more policewomen and men on the streets dealing with the problems. Are there more police officers on the streets of Southend or Essex? There are not. That is of huge concern, so it would be wonderful if the Government were able to come up with some positive, deliverable proposals in the new year.
My local authority advises me that young offenders from other local authority areas are being moved into Southend-on-Sea. That does not help our youth offending team, as moneys allocated by the Youth Justice Board to such teams throughout the country do not take account of the fact that offenders may be moved into an area from another authority. The Southend youth offending service has to make up any shortfall in funding. That is crazy.
The youth offending team in the authority that has moved the offenders to another area still receives money for them even though it no longer has responsibility for them. I am also advised by my local authority that although many local authorities are willing to be billed by the receiving authority, many others are not. Given the disappointing financial settlement that Southend had recently, it will make our situation difficult.
I now come to single-handed doctors. The Prime Minister said in the House:
"There has been a move over time away from single-handed practices so as to improve the quality of care that people receive."—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 219.]
Does he have any idea how damaging that statement was to single-handed GPs the length and breadth of the country? I applaud Doctor Magazine which has started a campaign on this issue. A petition will be presented at 10 Downing street in the early part of next year, with which I and other hon. Members hope to be associated. Single-handed GPs discussed the situation with me at my surgery. Apparently the Prime Minister cited a 10-year-old study which said that the number of partners failed to explain variations in standards. The health service faces a number of challenges and to insult and devalue the wonderful professionalism of single-handed GPs does no good, so I hope that the Prime Minister will take the opportunity in the new year to correct that impression.

1069
On any number of occasions I have drawn to the attention of the House what hon. Members might think are my prejudiced views on mobile phones. I was extremely excited when last week I got a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) letting me know that the Government have launched a new £7 million research programme into the health implications of mobile phone base stations and masts. That is splendid news. The House needs a clear decision on this. My local authority in Southend asks me, "What is the good of us turning down applications when we go to appeal, the appeals are overturned and the hard pressed council taxpayers have to pay?" This is a serious matter. I am not convinced that the health implications are trivial. Moreover, how often have Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box and said that it is illegal to use a mobile phone while driving a car? Not only does that happen every day, but people are now stopping suddenly and dramatically because they have reached an interesting point in their conversation. There is no point in Ministers saying that that is a dreadful practice when nothing is done to enforce the law.
I recall making a speech from the Government Back Benches on the Third Reading of the Bill to protect badgers. I have now had a well attended meeting with constituents that has made it clear to me that I had not entirely realised what I was signing up to. I am not prepared to give names and addresses of where we have a badger problem in Southend because when the Government tried to do something positive, violent demonstrations took place. A few years ago a crowd of badgers must have got together, walked down this particular road and set up home in a back garden. They did not stop in one back garden; they have now built their homes underneath the garages of a number of terraced properties in an urban area. I would not have believed that those cuddly animals could do so much damage. Walls are now collapsing and residents cannot go out in their gardens. No one could be stronger on animal welfare than I am, but, although badgers are beautiful animals, they should be approached at some peril because they can do considerable damage.
A representative from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and two other organisations visited the area, and we had a wonderful, positive meeting. I had no idea how difficult it is to exclude badgers from properties, but a course of action has been agreed that will, I hope, deal with the matter sometime next year after the breeding season.
The cost of dealing with the issue—putting up gates and chains—will all fall on the local residents, and I cannot believe that that is right because, obviously, the local residents did not say, "Come on badgers, come and occupy our gardens." All that will be very expensive and a number of the residents are elderly and certainly cannot afford the cost, so I hope that the Minister will have a word with his colleagues to find out whether something can be done about that.
Many hon. Members have referred to Cliffe airport, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). I applaud the two local authorities for successfully extending the consultation period. All
1070
this has been said already, but an airport operating on 24-hour basis would be environmental and social disaster for my constituency. I have heard people say that that is a red herring. Well, if it is, it is a jolly expensive one because all local residents are being invited to become involved in the consultations. I hope that, given the extension to the consultation period, the Government will consult properly and ensure that all residents in my constituency receive a proper information pack and that we have some properly conducted meetings.
Finally, before I give my usual Christmas salutations, I wish to refer to the death of a local constituent. I must tell the Minister that I do not think that I can do justice to the circumstances surrounding her death now, so I am applying for an Adjournment debate, but I would be letting down Joanne Martinson's parents if I did not mention her death.
On 7 November last year, that young lady—she was 19—was driving with her partner, Adam Seomore. They were both wearing seatbelts. She was fit, in good health and not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. She was driving at approximately 25 mph. Adam has confirmed that there was no harsh acceleration and no high engine revs or any sharp braking. He was looking out of the nearside passenger window when he became aware that the car had swerved sideways and was moving towards a tree. Joanne was gripping the steering wheel with both hands. He did not see what caused Joanne to swerve, but clearly recalls that she was not distracted by anything in the car. According to her parents, she was a very careful driver, and I am sure that that is the case.
There were seven witnesses to the accident, and I am sure that all hon. Members would wonder how someone driving at less than 25 mph could end up losing her life, but she did. I make no criticism of the Crown Prosecution Service because my hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and for Castle Point and I spent some time with the CPS last week, learning at first hand the circumstances under which its operates, but, according to two other witnesses, another vehicle seemed to be absolutely crucial in making Joanne swerve. The owner of the vehicle only had a provisional licence and only had sight in one eye. There was also concern about the vehicle's insurance and tax. This individual, however, has not even been prosecuted. I hope that I will be successful in obtaining an Adjournment debate on the subject in the new year, when the appropriate Minister can respond to the issue, because the parents simply want this matter to be dealt with fairly, and they owe it to their daughter to ensure that a proper investigation is completed.
Do I lament the passing of this year? Not really—I had been looking forward to it, but I have been disappointed by any number of issues. In fact, I seem to have spent most of my time attending funerals. I was at a funeral this morning, I will be at another funeral on Monday, and my secretary phoned me earlier to say that someone else had died and that I had been asked to conduct the funeral. That is going a bit too far. I am much happier in the role that I will play tomorrow as Father Christmas. The Government have not served the country well over the past year. In so many respects, they could be doing better than they are at present.

1071
I should like to conclude on a non-political point. You and I will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we had a splendid regatta on the River Thames. The Thames is a wonderful asset, and I shall ask Mr. Speaker if he might consider giving permission to us to have a regatta in 2003, perhaps we can celebrate that next year. I wish all hon. Members and staff a happy Christmas and good health, peace and prosperity in the new year.
4.47 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am particularly obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) for introducing philosophical notions into this debate, especially that of protracted time, of which I had not heard previously. His mention of that has caused me to make an addition to what I was going to say about a road scheme.
Those who follow these debates assiduously and study Hansard daily might be aware that on several occasions I have raised the Hatfield Peverel to Witham road. Several Essex Members are present who will be familiar with the A12 road, the number of vehicles on it, and the particular hazards if one travels out of Hatfield Peverel on that road on the way to Witham. As a novice Member, I was particularly pleased when, following an Adjournment debate, the Minister responsible announced that, for safety reasons, a link road would be built between the village of Hatfield Peverel and the town of Witham. I am about to congratulate the successor Minister on the fifth anniversary of that announcement in January—the road, however, has not yet been built. It has been approved, it has been in the hands of the Highways Agency, and it is about to be subject to a public inquiry, but not a single grain of sand has been put down.
Mr. McWalter: My hon. Friend is aware, of course, that, according to the law of protracted time, the bigger the idea, the more protracted the time to achieve it. As the idea to which he refers does not sound that big, what is the other reason for the extended period during which nothing has happened?
Mr. Hurst: It is a good job that those responsible were not planning to build the Great Wall of China, as the extended time would have been even greater. I might add that the road to which I refer is one mile in length from one end to the other. I pass it four or five times per week. If I had got out of my car, put down some sand each evening and eventually put down some concrete, I imagine that I could have built that road single-handedly in those five years. But the road has not been completed. Ministers have come and gone—some have come to and gone from the constituency, and a number have gone from office—but the road is still not there. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will pass that information on to the current Minister responsible, who is welcome to come down and see the site any time.
I also want to make a few remarks about an aspect of agriculture—the present plight of pig farming. It is a particularly interesting sector in the sense that it is unsubsidised. The big debate in agriculture at present is about moving away from subsidy and into a free market, and perhaps we can see the future if we look at pig farming, which does not have the benefit of support payments.
1072
All of us had a notion about what pig farming was like. Some of us would have conjured up in our mind a picture of Lord Emsworth and his particular devotion to the activity. However, that was a pastime breeding of pigs rather than a commercial operation. Traditionally, farms in England had a pig. In the main, farms were mixed and a pig would form part of that mixture. Further back is the idyllic view of pigs running loose in oak woods and eating acorns. That is a rustic and attractive vision, but those methods would not serve our present consumerist society. A few pigs running in the oak woods would not suffice to meet our needs. Over time, pig farming has obviously become more commercial.
Pig farming was always something a farmer could move into when times were good and move out of when times and prices were poor. It required less capital investment than other forms of farming. One did not need vast acres of land or expensive equipment and it did not take years to build up a good breeding herd. Like poultry farming, one could move in and out of the sector.
Circumstances have changed as time has gone by. Although pig farming was always cyclical—it was subject to ups and downs—we now appear to be in an extended downturn that concerns all those Members who have pig breeders and pig farmers in their constituencies. In the early 1990s, the price was high and I suspect that produced a degree of overproduction, with the natural consequences of the law of supply and demand. Other factors have now come into the system and they do not bode well for the future.
By 1997–98, the price of pigmeat was down to 70p per kilogram, and the break-even figure is thought to be 90p per kilogram. I visited farms at that time and they did not know how they would survive. The truth is that a number of them have not survived and the number of pig-breeding units is down. The national herd is down, as is the whole production of pigmeat.
One could argue that the cycle will turn, prices will pick up and all will be fine. Prices have risen to more than 90p, which is about the break-even point, but they seem to have stuck at that level. Other factors, once unknown, now exist firm and hard. The major one is the strength of our currency against the euro, and the obvious conclusion is that imports have become cheap and exports have become expensive. In some products, that would not matter too much, but just across the sea are traditional producers of pigmeat who benefit.
We all know that Danish bacon has been advertised in this country, certainly since I was a child. An advertising campaign has been run for the best part of 40 years almost always on the basis that bacon equals Danish. Our producers have never been able to match that type of advertising. When economic circumstances are favourable to foreign exporters, they come into their own. The figures clearly show that, in the past two years, the amount of Danish bacon sold in this country has gone up from about 20 per cent. to about 25 per cent. of the market whereas sales of our product have gone down from about 43 per cent. to 37 per cent. There has been quite an imbalance in the change of trading circumstances. At one time, we would have had an export market perhaps to Russia or eastern Europe,

1073
but because of the difficulties in that region and the strength of the pound, that market has almost entirely disappeared.
In addition—it is one problem on top of another—we have rightly attained the highest animal welfare standards in the world. At the same time, we have gone a long way down the route of pollution control and environmental protection. We support all those measures completely, but they come at a price. At one time, pig breeding was an economic matter. It could be done on spare land and the owner could go into something else. Now, the amount of plant and investment is greater and greater in a market in which the margin is narrower and narrower. We also have the scourge of disease. Classical swine fever is a problem, and pigs currently have a wasting disease. Although diseases come and go in any form of agricultural breeding, pig farmers want the Government to invest more in research into animal diseases, on a co-operative basis with our European neighbours, so that a pool of information can be applied to protect native herds.
Another issue grows apace, although it is difficult to put one's finger on it as it is like a will-o'-the-wisp—the power of the supermarkets. It is almost impossible to pin down where the profit disappears for the grower and the breeder, and where it comes into the hand of the retailer. A number of Select Committees have considered the issue and there have been other inquiries in the House, too, but we have never got to the bottom of the mystery.
There is no mystery in the figures, however. Supermarkets account for about three quarters of retail bacon sales in this country. So in the main, someone in the pigmeat business has to be in the supermarket business too. Supermarkets exert an enormous contractual power over those who sell to them. The margin between the price of pigmeat at farm gate and at retail is widening. In January 2000, the profit margin was 221p; it is now 248p. It is growing step by step during an agricultural depression. The Government should approach the way in which the supermarket monopolies control almost the whole market with greater vigour than has hitherto been the case. That practice must be detrimental, not only to the producer, but ultimately to the consumer as well.
The Government could do more about labelling. We know that steps have been taken on that and that the Government, rightly or wrongly—many of us agree with them—are keen on clear labelling. We especially need that on food products. We are about to have lurid announcements on tobacco products so that the possible consequences are abundantly clear to the purchaser, but we often need a magnifying glass in a supermarket or store to track down a product's country of origin. I am not talking about the country of processing or packaging, but where the product was bred or grown. That is what the consumer wants to know. We make much of freedom of choice, but choice has to be based on knowledge. If the knowledge is so elusive that one cannot put one's finger on it, that choice is denied.
If that problem is severe enough in a supermarket, how much greater is it in a restaurant? If one says to a waiter, "Are these English pork sausages for breakfast?", he will undoubtedly say, "Certainly, sir,"
1074
but there is no way of knowing for sure. When one looks at a menu, there is no way of knowing where the product comes from unless the restaurant chooses to advertise it. If we are to give our own producers and growers a fair chance, we must go much further down the route of clear, unconfused, large-written labelling, so that there is freedom of choice.
I shall say no more about the matter because I know that interest usually palls after the first few minutes of any speech, except that of certain hon. Members present today. I join others in offering you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all other Members and staff the very best wishes for the Christmas season.
5 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who made a fine speech with which I heartily agreed. I am not sure about the roads that he mentioned at the beginning, but the rest of his speech certainly rang a bell with me.
I shall speak briefly about what will not be a happy Christmas for many of my constituents. On 7 July this year, The Sunday Times carried an article with the banner headline "Britain is to get a robot air force to fight terrorists as part of a multi-million-pound overhaul of its armed services". The article went on to refer to pilotless planes, which, it states,
"were the success story of the Afghanistan conflict and were credited with killing Mohammed Ater".
The article reports:
"An American Predator, flown from McDill air force base in Florida, located a building where Atef was staying near Kabul and attacked it with an anti-tank missile."
It refers to the strategic defence review and continues, interestingly:
"British equipment in future will be bought to be more compatible with that of its allies. That is bound to cause consternation among opponents of Britain's increasingly close military ties to America."
For once, I am not critical of that aspect, and I shall explain why. The article went on to state:
"The planes will be flown by a pilot sitting in a cockpit in a ground station in Britain or from a mobile command centre."
It refers to one location already shortlisted, Llanbedr in Gwynedd in my constituency,
"from where the drones can be flown over Cardigan Bay during training."
Within a few weeks of the article appearing, the Ministry of Defence announced its intention to close that airfield. The announcement was met with shock and dismay. Several hundred constituents have worked there for many years and their loyalty was beyond doubt. It seems that the company was gearing up for that shock announcement at Christmas 2001, and that redundancy processes have not been followed. The unswervingly loyal work force have been kicked in the teeth by QinetiQ, a company in which the Government are a major shareholder. They have not been treated in the way that one would expect staff to be treated.
The decision to close the airfield at Llanbedr and with it the Jindivik target service seems to have been taken in the face of several contrary requirements. The current role of Jindivik is to provide the Air Force with an

1075
effective airborne target system at a reasonable cost. In order for the trials to be realistic, a full-scale representative target is required. That has been done successfully at Llanbedr for many years. Unfortunately, neither the UK nor the BVRAAM—beyond visual range air-to-air missile—partner nations have a full-scale target available. Jindivik was selected as the nearest representative target available.
That is no longer an option, because the company and the Government preferred Mirach, which will be selected for trials. The Mirach costs are based on each target completing 25 flights before loss. The longest-operating Jindivik has completed 204 flights, and the largest number of flights by a UK Jindivik is 265.
Given the above, it is difficult to follow the logic of closing Llanbedr airport as a cost-saving exercise. Each of the lost Mirachs cost £200,000, and on their trial runs in the Hebrides many failed. The most illogical aspect of the proposed closure of the Llanbedr target service is that when a UK project, or the Royal Air Force, requires a target, there will not be one available if Mirach does not come up to standard. If QinetiQ cannot provide that target, money will be spent on improving an overseas range to enable it to meet the requirements of the UK trial. Essentially, experts say that money would be spent in Sweden, France, South Africa or the United States to meet the UK's trial requirements rather than on improving range facilities in the UK, thus allowing UK plc to be a leader in ranges and target facilities.
The other concern about closure of the airport comes from the RAF. The airport is very important for emergency landings. Indeed, the RAF uses the base hundreds of time a year and, typically, 86 times a year for emergency movements.
On 24 September, a meeting was held with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), together with members of his staff, the unions from Llanbedr airport and my Welsh Assembly colleague. The response that we received was not encouraging, but the Minister said that he would reply in detail on each point raised. To be fair, he did so within a reasonable time. We heard earlier today about some Departments' huge delay in responding, but on 12 October the Minister wrote to me with a detailed response to the many points that had been raised at that meeting. I wish now to analyse the points in his letter, as it is important to have those on the record.
Significantly, the Minister's letter did not mention either the combined aerial target service procedure—he referred to a period before the CATS contract was being discussed—or the cost of introducing Mirach. Although the Minister said that he undertook to reply to all the points that we had raised, he responded only on the Jindivik-specific points. Many other issues were raised relating to the airport at Llanbedr. In particular, we required a response on use of the airfield by RAF Hawk aircraft and on the potential to use the airfield for testing and development of future unmanned aircraft vehicles.
The Minister said:
"QinetiQ's proposals followed an extensive review of the facilities it currently operates on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. The review confirmed that the MOD owns a large number of diverse sites and capabilities, and that a substantial surplus exists within the T&E"—
1076 0
test and evaluation—
"environment as a whole. This highlights the fact that provision of T&E is not currently being conducted in a cost effective manner and that significant transformation is required to provide better value for money for the MOD and hence for the taxpayer."
That shows that value for money is key to the MOD's thinking. Alas, the interim use of Mirach pre CATS will not provide that.
The Minister then said:
"In terms of aerial target provision, no single system can provide all the capability needed for all weapon systems. Jindivik has met our requirements well, but it does have limitations. Mirach"—
the new one—
"has limitations too."
He goes on to sing the praises of Mirach, which is, unfortunately, misleading. He says:
"Mirach can for example fly multi targets and in formation and is designed to be a fully mobile system."
Jindivik also has a proven capability to fly multi-target and in formation.
The Minister then referred to the relative sizes of the Mirach and the Jindivik, and said that
"the requirement for a full-scale representative target is not so robust as stated. The choice of target for any T&E activity is inevitably based on an assessment of many factors and the choice of Jindivik as the nearest representative target for ASRAAM and BVRAAM in itself involved necessary compromise. QinetiQ has evaluated the performance of Mirach against the RAF's usage of Jindivik and in terms of flying performance and signature characteristics, the build standard of Mirach will provide an adequate replacement for Jindivik. Any target system has a series of limitations—no single system can provide all the capability needed to assess each and every weapon system."
The experts' response to that argument is that the visual signature of Jindivik is substantially larger than that of Mirach. Jindivik is 7.1 m long with a wingspan of 6.3 m, while Mirach is 4.1 m long and has a wingspan of 2.3 m. The difference is likely to result in a substantial increase in the number of aborted missile firings, due to the fighter being unable to acquire the target. The wasted fighter target sorties come at a cost that will ultimately have to be borne by the MOD.
The Minister went on to say:
"QinetiQ has confirmed that Mirach is the replacement target for Jindivik."
However, on 13 September, an announcement was made under the heading "Invitations to Negotiate" to three bidders for the new system—Team Firecats, Insight Global Target Systems and a team led by QinetiQ, in which the Government have a stake. They were bidding for the CATS contract. It seemed that no one would know which target would be the long-term replacement for Jindivik until the winner was chosen. Mirach has a guaranteed life of only a few months beyond the proposed demise of Jindivik. The point that I am making is that the Government were actively pursuing the Mirach system with their preferred bidder while inviting two other companies to submit bids for replacement. I think that that procedure is rather skewed. I question whether it is morally right and I do not know whether it was legally right either.

1077
The Minister went on to state:
"The suggestion that no hardware costs remain is incorrect … There are also other costs associated with the retention of Jindivik which have to be included",
and so on. Keeping Jindivik in operation for the short period between its proposed retirement date and the start of the CATS contract should not incur any extra cost. In contrast, procuring and introducing Mirach to run from the middle of 2004 until the introduction of CATS and then scrapping it if it does not form part of the CATS solution will be extremely costly. That will certainly not be a cost-saving approach for the Government.
The Minister also states:
"Our understanding of the capabilities and limitations of Mirach will develop as we gain operational experience".
He thereby says that it will not be perfect when it goes into operation—a rather strange thing for a Minister to say. He goes on to state:
"the system and QinetiQ's processes will be modified where necessary",
which is again questionable in terms of the way forward. That statement implies that many months, if not years, will be needed to identify, design and produce modifications to the airframe, system and procedures. Unless the CATS contest has been prejudged, Mirach has a guaranteed life of only a few months.
In referring to Jindivik and Mirach, the Minister said:
"Both systems have the capability to recover towed targets by a number of means. Depending on exactly which towed target is used, Mirach targets are either ditched into the sea after use (as with Jindivik), recovered with the aircraft if undamaged (as with Jindivik), or parachuted into the sea for recovery".
The Jindivik solution of bringing the target back with the aircraft is superior. The targets do not have to be searched for by a helicopter or with boats before they can be recovered. The recovery of Jindivik is unaffected by sea state. In those circumstances, Jindiviks would not be lost where Mirachs would be.
As I said, until the CATS competition has been decided, the long-term replacement for Jindivik is not known, or should not be known. I am extremely unhappy about the way in which the base has been treated. The work force have been through a long period of indecision, the privatisation of the company, and limited contracts three or four times in the past 25 years or so. Their loyalty and specialisms are beyond question and they deserve better.
Mr. Viggers: Having shot down an RAF Meteor target from Llanbedr in 1968, I pay tribute to the concerned manner in which the hon. Gentleman makes his case. I understand that, after such a long period of dedicated service, the work force would feel deeply about the closure of the station.
Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It would clearly be a great shame to close the station and I cannot understand why the Ministry of Defence is considering mothballing it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is on the coast and does not affect populous areas. It has been run excellently over the years and is now doomed to close in 2004 under a
1078
procedure that is morally and possibly legally questionable. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support and for his comments based on his experience. I am no expert—I have never shot anything down.
Bob Spink: A few defendants.
Mr. Llwyd: Not while defending them, I hope.
Jindivik has a capability for simultaneous flight of multiple targets. The information that QinetiQ staff have witnessed four target operations by Mirach is spurious. Jindivik will he replaced not by a better model, but by one that has yet to be proven. Yet the Ministry of Defence is apparently hell bent on doing that. Almost the whole cost of Llanbedr airfield has been allocated to Jindivik. Charges to the Air Force and the Army for their use of the facilities are well below the proportionate rate. For example, RAF Valley Hawks are charged significantly less per aircraft movement at Llanbedr than at RAF Valley or RAF Mona. Again, that gives the impression that there has been a conspiracy to close down the place for some time. If it transpired that use by the Air Force in Valley required Llanbedr to be kept open, the airfield operation costs would pass to them. The overall saving to the Ministry of Defence would be much smaller—more than half the savings might not be achieved.
I do not want to go into further detail this afternoon. Suffice it to say that I am worried about the work force. As the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) confirmed, they are dedicated and they deserve better treatment. I call on the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider the short-termism and the odd, questionable procedure that has been adopted to mothball an airfield that could he considerably useful not only to the military but to the civil authorities. That makes no sense in the short, medium or long term. I urge the Government to reconsider.
I extend the compliments of the season to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to all hon. Members, but I remind the House that, as a direct result of the Ministry of Defence's conduct, many people in my constituency will not have a happy Christmas.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that time is running on and I fear that some hon. Members will not be able to speak. It would therefore be helpful if hon. Members could make their remarks as brief as possible so that not too many people are disappointed.
5.18 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I shall be brief. I want to raise two issues: one involves my constituency and the other is a national matter. The constituency issue concerns the way in which public money has been used on a portfolio of roughly 3,000 properties. I must relate a little of the history so that hon. Members can understand the point that I am making.
The properties constitute an estate that was built by a company called Warner Estates probably 100 years ago. For many years, it acted as a private landlord and was regarded as fairly philanthropic. It gradually decided to

1079
get out of the rented market and started to sell the properties, leasehold so that by about 1998, approximately three quarters were leasehold and a quarter were tenanted.
Late in 2000, the company decided to dispose of those properties. At that point, negotiations went on, which involved Circle 33 housing group. The focus was on the quarter of the properties that were tenanted or empty, because, quite clearly, if a social landlord could acquire those properties, that would be useful in an area with a rented housing shortage. All those who had the matter raised with them, including the local authority and me, thought that a sensible way to proceed.
In addition to the tenanted properties, however, there were about 2,000 leasehold properties and about another 300 properties involving two flats—one leasehold as well as one still tenanted—within a building. There were negotiations with Circle 33. Warner Estates had a subsidiary company called Benchlevel, which had a further subsidiary called Finalbrief. Warner Estates stripped out all the assets from the two subsidiaries and transferred all the freeholds to the ownership of Benchlevel.
Circle 33 then acquired the share capital of Benchlevel. In turn, it split the properties and took all the leasehold properties into the further subsidiary, Finalbrief. The share capital of Finalbrief was sold on to a company called Freehold Managers (Nominees) Ltd., in which all the shareholders were directors of HSBC Trust Corporation, which is based in the Isle of Man.
The question that arose involved the reason for using that mechanism to transfer the properties. The freeholds were transferred between companies that had been associated with one another for a number of years and the share capital of those companies was sold, not the freeholds. So, every single leaseholder was unable to apply the right of first refusal to buy their freehold, which they would have been able to do if the freeholds were being sold between the companies. That is why this mechanism was adopted.
Circle 33 said to me, "We have done that because Warner Estates insisted on selling the portfolio as a whole, and of course it moved the properties to its subsidiary before we bought them." That may be so, but I find it difficult to believe that all that was not thought out beforehand. Shell companies were created, which were then transferred along with the properties.
A lot of other issues arose involving the failure of Circle 33 to give leaseholders information on what was happening, the ownership of the freeholds and problems with the companies that had become the new owners. Many of those we can now solve, however, partly because of the good leasehold reform legislation that the House passed last summer, which gives leaseholders many more rights.
The central issue that concerns me is that public money—Housing Corporation money was involved in funding Circle 33's acquisition of those properties—has been used to fund that purchase through mechanisms that were deliberately engineered to prevent leaseholders from being able to exercise the right to first refusal of purchase of the freehold. Nothing illegal has
1080
been done, but there has been deliberate engineering to achieve that outcome, which causes me considerable concern. That is not how public money should be used through a social landlord.
A lot of problems remain. Those properties have been in place for many years. In all the years that I have been involved in politics in Waltham Forest, I have received very few complaints from Warner Estates leaseholders or tenants. Within 18 months of a social landlord taking them over, we have packed public meetings attended by several hundred people who are all concerned about what has been happening to their properties. The matter should be looked at by Ministers who were involved in some of the decisions at the beginning, when approval was given to Housing Corporation money being used in such a way.
Let me now raise a national issue that is likely to affect many Members early in the new year. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 contains a provision, which will come into force on 8 January, denying people applying for asylum in-country any support unless the National Asylum Support Service is convinced that they can produce a good reason for not having applied at the port of entry. Thousands of people could be destitute as a result, with no possibility of an appeal—but there will of course be appeals, because those denied support will end up in our advice surgeries.
I do not want to argue the case as to whether we should have acted as we did because I made my views clear when we were debating the Bill, but a good many questions were raised at the time—I raised some of them with the Home Secretary—about the way in which the scheme would operate, what criteria would be used to decide whether someone had waited too long before making an application, and what was meant by "special needs". The Act says that those with special needs will be exempt from the provision. What will happen if someone has a health problem? What will happen to a woman who is pregnant? I was told that we would be given the information; indeed, a Minister in the House of Lords suggested that codes of guidance might be issued. Nothing has been issued so far, however.
Mr. Gardiner: Are not those who can show that their destitution is a result of pregnancy, age or illness, including mental illness, specifically covered by the National Assistance Act 1948? Did not a recent court case prove that?
Mr. Gerrard: Some people will still be able to go to a local authority and cite that Act, but local authorities themselves will have to decide whether the Act covers those people. We need codes of guidance and criteria so that local authorities know where they stand, non-governmental organisations know where they stand, and we know where we stand when people turn up at our surgeries—as they undoubtedly will when they have been refused support by the NASS. We need to know the rules of the game.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will draw that problem to the Home Secretary's attention. As I have said, from 8 January it is likely to affect many Members of Parliament.
I join others, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in offering you and the staff of the House the compliments of the season.
5.28 pm
Bob Spink: Let me offer you, Sir, and everyone at the Palace of Westminster Christmas greetings and good wishes. I extend those good wishes to the Minister, to Labour Members, and even to my own Whips!
I have a sad task to perform. I wish to pay tribute to Madam Mayor of Castle Point, Councillor Vera Elworthy, the charter mayor, who sadly passed away on Saturday last week. She was a lady of great dignity, charm and grace. She was one of the finest councillors that Castle Point, or any council in the country, ever had. She was loved by everyone, particularly the council officers. She had boundless energy and enthusiasm, and, even when she was in a wheelchair, she never failed to see residents when other councillors were often not to be found. She visited them and supported them when they needed her help.
Vera cared deeply for others, and her civic duties and service were eclipsed only by her voluntary work. She was chairman, president or fundraiser of more charitable institutions and good causes than I could possibly remember. She was always warmly and well supported by her husband George, who is a fine gentleman.
This is a significant point in the history of Castle Point, because it has lost a great servant to civic society. It is also a great personal loss to me, as Vera was a good and loyal friend. Her passing will be deeply regretted in Castle Point.
There are two other emerging local heroes in Castle Point, both of whom are ladies. Kate Meager has taken by the horns the problem of the local multi-modal study, which threatened many quiet communities with roads and changes to traffic management. Those proposals were deeply regretted by many local people. Kate Meager has been the voice of her local community, and has taken the battle on through the press and through councillors. She has done a great service to the community on the Bird estate. In particular, she has fought the Jotmans lane proposal.
It is recognised that Castle Point suffers from enormous congestion problems. Canvey island needs a third road, and I shall keep on mentioning that until we get it. These problems need to be solved. I do not point the finger at any political party. I just want to congratulate Kate Meager on the excellent work that she does for her community.
The other local hero to emerge recently is Jackie Byrne, who has taken up the cudgels on behalf of residents who oppose Cliffe airport, and that is virtually every resident in Castle Point. That airport is an inappropriate Government option. It is environmentally, economically and socially disastrous for Essex, yet Essex has not been consulted by the Government on this matter. That shows what little regard the Government have for the people of Essex, and how bankrupt and arrogant they have become.
The airport will have five runways, the nearest of which will be only 2,500 yards from my constituency. Planes coming in to land on the fifth runway will fly right over Canvey island and Hadleigh in my constituency, and it will be in use 24 hours a day. Despite all the problems of noise, aviation fuel smells, air pollution and the environmental damage that that would cause, the
1082
Government did not see fit to consult my community. When I persistently and repeatedly ask the Government to send a Minister to a public meeting that I would organise in my community, so that he can explain that option and answer questions, they refuse even to answer me. Ministers do not have the courage to explain to the community what their Cliffe airport proposal is all about.
A lot of money has gone into the health service nationally over the past two years. There has been an increase in funding of about 22 per cent., yet the number of patients admitted to hospital in that period has fallen by 0.5 per cent. There are 55,000 fewer patients admitted to hospitals. The gold standard is the number of finished consultant episodes, which is up only 1.6 per cent. as opposed to the 22 per cent. extra cash. That shows that the Government are failing to deliver on public services. Locally, we have difficulties with health, and we need improved health care services.
I welcome some of the changes that are taking place. We in Castle Point have great difficulty with succession planning for GPs who are coming up for retirement. Recruiting new doctors is a big problem, and one way in which the primary care trust has tried to tackle it is by setting up a single centre for health on Canvey Island, at the Paddocks. Various facilities will be provided there, including training, which will help us to attract junior GPs; a smaller practice would be unable to attract them.
But we must avoid over-centralisation, and be aware that we need centres for health care excellence on the east of the island and on the north. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend. West (Mr. Amess) said, the Prime Minister's attack on single-handed practices was absolutely intolerable; it was quite wrong to paint all such practices with a single broad brush. Members will know that many single-handed practices deliver an excellent, high-quality service, and we should be prepared to stand up and thank them for that, rather than criticising them in the manner of this Government.
On the problem of the post offices, as we know, the Government have said that they expect to close 3,000 of them over the next two years. Hon. Members may remember Labour's 1997 pledge that only it could be
"trusted with the future of the post offices."
Labour said that it would
"maintain the network of post offices".
Those are the words, but as I said, the actions show that the Government plan to close 3,000 post offices over the next two years. I give the Minister notice that we in Castle Point will fight for every single post office to stay open. They are more than just shops, or part of the economic infrastructure; they are an essential and deeply valued part of our community and social fabric. I repeat: we will fight to save those post offices in Castle Point.
Youth street crime is a great problem, and antisocial behaviour is a major issue in Castle Point, just as it is elsewhere. I was therefore sorry to discover that, through the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the Government have removed the police's power to confiscate from people aged under 18 unopened cans or bottles of alcohol. I know that the Government realise that they have got this wrong, and that they plan to change the provision; indeed, I intend to introduce a 10-

1083
minute Bill that would do so. I know about this issue because it was me who introduced the legislation that originally empowered the police to remove alcohol both opened and unopened. If a group of nine to 11-year-olds are on the street at 10 o'clock at night—when they should not be there—with a six-pack, only one of which they are drinking from, the police can confiscate the three-quarters empty can, but they must leave with those children the five unopened cans, to be drunk as soon as they turn their backs. Then, those kids will get into trouble. It is a question of protecting not just our communities but those children. It is while under the influence of alcohol that most children are first exposed to drugs. This is an important issue, so I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support my 10-minute Bill, which I shall introduce on 15 January.
I have a five-point plan to tackle street crime and antisocial behaviour that is very simple. First, we need more police officers on the street. That means not only more bobbies, but using those whom we already have more effectively, rather than their sitting in the police station doing their administration. They must have the new computer systems that will release them for policing duties on the streets.
We need police stations to he kept open longer, so that people have better access to the police. We need zero-tolerance policing, so that youngsters know where the firm lines are drawn. My police force in Essex has been talking about going out on the street with social workers to negotiate acceptable behaviour contracts with gangs of youngsters. I have never heard such nonsense. The House fixes what is acceptable behaviour and decides the laws of the land, and the police enforce those laws. Social workers should not be involved in this.
We want parents to take seriously their duties to control their youngsters and to know what they are doing. We want there to be more facilities to distract youngsters from bad behaviour. In my constituency, for example, the excellent Legacy XS is opening a new youth centre and a skateboard park. We owe it to youngsters to give them viable alternatives, so that they are kept out of trouble and we are kept safe.
I visited internally displaced people in the Burma jungle two weeks ago. I went over the border from Thailand, and I also visited the 20,000 refugees on that border. I have seen for myself the disaster taking place in Burma, which is getting worse by the day as Burma's economic problems worsen.
The Burmese military junta, the SPDC, has made some positive moves, such as releasing Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest. Also, about 10 per cent. of political prisoners have been released, but that is a small first step in a long journey, and much remains to be done. There are still massive human rights abuses against ethnic peoples such as the Karen, the Shan, the Mon and the Chin.
I hope to secure an Adjournment debate in which I can tell the House about my visit to Burma. We can then debate the two key things that need to be done there. The matter has attracted great support in the House, as it does not involve party politics. First, we must review the gut-wrenchingly awful human rights abuses being carried out against the ethnic groups. We must get the international community to focus on them urgently.
1084
Secondly, we need to debate, the longer-term constitutional framework that will give justice and stability to the Burmese people. In that way, the problem of drugs from that country which affects Britain, of the drug money that funds terrorism around the world, and of the human rights abuses in Burma can be resolved permanently.
Homelessness is a problem in my constituency. I am meeting the chief executive of Castle Point borough council tomorrow to talk about the way in which homeless people in the area have been betrayed by the council's failure to deal with the problem. I expect to raise that issue in the House at a later date.
Finally, I want to talk about medals. Another Member spoke earlier about the need for a Suez medal, and I agree entirely. However, I want to raise a new matter in connection with medals.
Christmas is a time of good will. Will the Prime Minister consider awarding a campaign medal to recognise the service given and sacrifices made by the men who served in Polaris and hunter-killer submarines during the cold war? They maintained the peace for many years, but the people involved in the campaign have received no recognition. They were effectively on active deterrent patrol all year round, including at Christmas and the new year. A constituent of mine once left his wife over the new year to go on patrol, leaving her with one child aged five years, and one aged three days. There was no paternity leave for him, and I think that he deserves a medal. The Prime Minister had paternity leave so I hope that he will award a medal to reward those people. At this time, many of our service men and women are getting ready to fight for world freedom from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and they go with our blessings and good wishes.
5.45 pm
Jeremy Corbyn: I will be brief and speak on only one subject. This may well he the last debate that we have before this country is at war over the situation in Iraq and the middle east. While we are spending a huge amount of time, effort and money in preparation for war, the entire population of the country is involved in various festivities that are supposed to be about peace and justice.
I reflected on that when I visited a local school last night. The Islington arts and media school had a wonderful Christmas celebration, in which children from every religion and no religion took part. They had recently celebrated Eid, Hanukah and Diwali, and now they were celebrating Christmas. They were happily working, playing and learning together. There is something very poignant about young people's preparedness to work together and to have some understanding of the way in which the world is set. Many are refugee children who have come from war-torn communities; they have seen brutality that one hopes never to see and suffered indignities that one hopes never to suffer in a lifetime. They give us great cause for hope.
The policies pursued by the United States, unfortunately with the very active and vocal support of this country, do not give us cause for hope. We received an application a few days ago from the United States

1085
asking us to join in national missile defence, and we have been requested to join them in a war against Iraq. I will deal with the latter point first.
No one in the House is a supporter of the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein and all that it has done. Many in this House, myself included, opposed the sale of arms to Iraq in the mid-1980s and supported the right of Kurdish people to live in peace within Iraq's borders. Since that time, what has been the policy towards Iraq? During the war in 1991, it was to bomb the country using depleted uranium weapons among many others, creating the utmost terror and misery and causing many deaths. That was followed by a sanctions regime, which should have been restricted to military and financial sanctions that could have had some effect on the regime but which instead affected the ordinary, poorest people in Iraq, many of whom have suffered grievously. The death rate is very high as a result of the sanctions.
In the wake of 11 September, President George Bush named his axis of evil states and decided that Iraq had to be bombed and there had to be a war against it. He eventually went to the United Nations and Security Council resolution 1441 was passed. I submit that it does not give us the authority to go to war. What it does is to give weapons inspectors the authority to visit Iraq—or, rather, go back to Iraq, because they were withdrawn in 1998—and that is what we are doing. I find it quite extraordinary that when the Iraqi Government complied with the request that their dossier and inventory of weapons be produced within the due time—and it was, all 12,000 pages of it—and when it went to the United States to go to the UN headquarters, it was taken over by the US rather than the UN. Other UN member states were apparently given copies of the dossier, and a partial view of the US assessment of it.
It seems to me that the UN is being told by the United States that it does not really matter what the inspectors say or how successful they are in finding any alleged weapons of mass destruction and destroying them, because the focus is on going to war.
If there was seriousness about avoiding a war and about ensuring the success of the weapons inspection regime, why are so many troops being sent to the Gulf? Why is so much money being spent on preparations for war? Why does the US President constantly undermine any efforts to bring about a peaceful solution to the problem?
It is sad and extremely disappointing that the British Government are touring the world on behalf of the US and its putative war against Iraq and are apparently giving the US carte blanche to go to war. Many of us were not convinced by the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Defence that there is to be a period of reflection on and consideration of Britain's involvement. If that is the case, why are reservists being called up? Why are so many preparations going ahead? Why is there such a high level of political and military preparation for war?
Many of us think that the US approach is deeply cynical. Like the UK, the US has always had a great interest in the middle east. Like this country, it has been involved in many coups over the years to impose regimes
1086
on countries in the region. I believe that the real motive behind the actions of the US is not democracy, peace, justice or human rights—it is all about the region's massive resources, especially the huge oil reserves in Iraq and other countries.
Throughout the world, many people believe that, fundamentally, the United States and Britain are going to war for oil, resources and military power, with no thought of the consequences in the region and of the number of people who will be killed—civilians in Iraq and elsewhere, and the soldiers of Iraq, Britain, the United States and other countries. In the end, the beneficiaries will be not the people of Iraq but those who have sold arms and those who are able to sell oil after the war.
We should stop now. We should support the weapons inspection regime, but we should pause and not get involved in a war. The consequences will be very serious indeed. A war will not bring about justice for the Palestinian people. It will not bring about human rights for the people of Saudi Arabia who are denied them. It will unleash other wars in the region and, above all, it will set the whole middle east and the whole Muslim and Arab world firmly against Europe and north America.
We are in the 21st century. We could bring about peace and justice but, instead, the Government produce a document entitled "Missile Defence: A Public Discussion Paper", which describes the protection of the United States from supposed missile attacks from the rest of the world. The US is the very country that is trying to abrogate and remove all the disarmament treaties of the past 30 years. In a world that is so deeply divided between rich and poor and between north and south, is it really sane for the world's richest and most powerful country to embark on this massive and probably unworkable experiment in national missile defence and involve us in it, too? Is it really sensible to go into the 21st century believing that an increased level of nuclear deterrence will bring peace to the world?
On 11 September last year, the United States suffered grievously when 3,000 people died in the attack on the World Trade Centre. The persons who committed those atrocities were unarmed; they took over planes with knives. They had skill and they were prepared to die because they believed that they were doing so for a cause. I have no time whatever for those who want to kill innocent civilians, but if we want to live in a peaceful world I am not convinced that going to war in Iraq, setting up national missile defence and labelling a series of states as an axis of evil—presumably in order to start a war in the future—is a sensible way forward.
The United States would be better advised by this country and others to get involved with the rest of the world, to support the Kyoto protocol and to attend the next earth summit—rather than ignoring it, as at Johannesburg. The US should sign up to a process that shares the wealth of the world rather than stealing it. Nothing angers people more in the poorest parts of the world, especially the middle east, when countries with huge rates of consumption which are ignorant of the reality of life for the poorest people in the world prosecute a war that seems to be intended to grab the resources of a region. At this time of the year—a time of peace and hope—I should have thought that we could

1087
pause for a moment and think of the terrible consequences of a war with Iraq in the new year, with ordinary Iraqi people and soldiers dying.
The past few months have seen massive political changes around the world and the rebirth and rejuvenation of peace movements in this country and elsewhere. On 28 September, 400,000 people marched through the streets of London; a million have marched through Florence; and many thousands have marched in New York, Washington, California, all over Europe and in many parts of the world. A generation is growing up in the wealthy west who simply do not want the policies of widening the gap between rich and poor and of a war between the first world and the third world to continue in their lifetime. They want to see a world based on peace, justice and on legal and moral principles. This war is about none of those things; it is fundamentally about US commercial interests.
The Government are well aware of the views of many people. I hope that the fact that a lot of ordinary British people have been to a political meeting for the first time in their lives in the past year because they do not want a war carried out in their names will give them pause for thought. In that spirit, I hope that we have a peaceful Christmas. Above all, I hope that we have a peaceful new year.
5.56 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I, too, wish to address a number of constituency matters. Even if the Minister cannot reply to them today, I hope that he will ensure that they are followed up by the relevant ministries.
First, I wish to pick up on a couple of comments made by others. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) talked about the long-running campaign to secure a medal for the Suez veterans of 1951–54. Hon. Members of all parties have campaigned on this issue. Earlier this year I was pleased to take part in a delegation to the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, who was conducting a review of the matter on behalf of the Prime Minister, and to urge him and his colleagues to look favourably on the compelling case that recognition should be given to those veterans by means of a medal. It is disappointing that since the review was announced and since that deputation, events have continued to drag and we still do not have a decision by the honours and decorations committee. I hope that the Minister can pass along the line to those conducting the review the fact that time is pressing and that they should honour those veterans while they are still alive.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) commented on the daft repeal of legislation enabling the police to confiscate unopened alcohol containers. He is absolutely right to flag that issue. Alcohol definitely fuels antisocial behaviour. In terms of preventive policing, it beggars belief that the police were unable to confiscate sealed containers and could only take opened containers. When I raised that concern with the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety recently, I was told that the Government were now minded to reverse that change in the law to bring it back to the position which would allow the police to exercise the power of
1088
confiscation of sealed containers. Just two weeks ago I received in a letter the good news that the Licensing Bill will contain amendments to the law to give effect to that intention. That is welcome news.
The first constituency case that I want to raise concerns the operation of the blue badge disabled persons scheme. A number of my constituents have raised concerns about the regulations governing the scheme. In particular, Mrs. Jenny Herneman and Mr. and Mrs. Ellis, whose sons James and Cameron suffer from autistic spectrum disorder and who provide hours of love, care and support to them and to other children, have real problems with transport. Getting to and from the shops and transporting their sons safely to other places is very difficult and adds yet another obstacle and burden to their caring role. Walking is often not an option—not because of their children's physical impairment, but because of the challenging behaviour that they sometimes exhibit given the unpredictability that those conditions can result in—so they want to be part of the blue badge scheme for safety reasons.
That problem is not isolated: it is growing in my constituency and, I suspect, in those of many other hon. Members. Indeed, it prompted the local consultant community paediatrician, Dr. Benedicta Ogeah, to raise her concerns with Sutton council earlier this year, to clarify whether the regulations are flexible. It led me to write to the Department for Transport and, on 22 August, the Under-Secretary replied:
"The eligibility criteria for a badge are governed by regulations laid before Parliament. Apart from blind people and those with severe upper limb disabilities, the key criterion to qualify for a badge is 'a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking'. People with Asperger's Syndrome and similar conditions will only be eligible if their walking ability is also very seriously and permanently affected."
That is an unsatisfactory position, and it led me to table early-day motion 295, which attracted support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. That early-day motion calls on the Government to review the regulations to allow safety to be a consideration in circumstances such as those that I describe. I hope that the Minister will pass that serious concern on to the Department for Transport.
The second issue that I wish to raise relates to the television licence concessions that apply to sheltered housing schemes, particularly those in the public sector. I refer to the accommodation for residential care concessionary television licence scheme, following a case raised by my constituents, Mr. Daniel Davies and Mr. Freeman and others in Crown road in Sutton. The problem is that qualifying residents in sheltered schemes can lose their concessions if the level of warden provision, or the age or social mix in the scheme change.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been reviewing that anomalous and unfair situation for some time now, and it has promised to introduce a preserved rights scheme to protect residents from those changes. In November 2001, I was told in a letter from the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting that consultation between the DCMS and officials at the BBC on the formulation of the necessary amendments to the television licence fee regulations were currently

1089
under way. That is fair enough, but that was the position in April 2001—some six months before that letter was written—and it is still the case today, 12 months later.
Indeed, the Secretary of State told me in a letter dated 27 September:
"The structure of the proposed amending regulations is still under consideration."
Surely the time for consideration has come to an end. Surely regulations should be introduced so that those who live in sheltered housing are not concerned that the concession could be suddenly swept away by dint of a simple change in the administration of their sheltered housing scheme. I hope that the Minister will pass that on as well.
The final concern that I wish to raise relates to changes in the way in which the basic state pension will be collected from next year. The chief officer of my local branch of Age Concern in Sutton, Marion Harper, recently sent me a copy of her correspondence with Postwatch regarding that change. In effect, the pension book will be withdrawn in April 2003, and older people will he given two options to collect their pensions: opening a bank account with the universal bank, or using the Post Office's keypad facility with a personal identification number.
In her letter to Postwatch, Marion Harper said:
"We are very concerned about the entire concept of changes to pension collection, but we would welcome an explanation as to how the new system will affect older people with mobility problems, particularly arthritis and older people who are visually impaired or blind. Please inform us what measures have been considered for these groups of older people."
Postwatch's reply was very disturbing indeed, as it said:
"On the issue of difficulties that may be faced by older people, it will be possible for those people who have a regular carer to apply for an additional card and PIN number. This arrangement applies only to the Post Office Card Account.
Customers using a current account with a cheque book to collect their benefit can write a cheque for their carer to cash or, alternatively, they can provide a letter of authority to enable the carers to use a building society pass book to withdraw money from the account.
These arrangements apply to permanent carers/helpers. Despite the fact that we have persistently raised this issue with the Department of Work and Pensions, it is still not clear how collection of benefits by another person will be facilitated either where there is no regular carer or helper; or where the claimant has a Card Account and needs another person to collect the benefit suddenly. In these circumstances, the benefits recipient would need to give someone their card and secret PIN number, thus breaching the terms and conditions of the account.
A further point of clarification we are still seeking is the position of those people who are not able to use a PIN pad but who do not have a carer/helper to collect their pensions for them."
With just three months to go before monumental changes are introduced that will impact on the lives of many thousands of pensioners in this country, it is a real cause for concern that details of that kind are not clear. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the Department for Work and Pensions will work over Christmas and through the night to make sure that pensioners have this information, and that their carers and others can be assured that there will be secure ways in which they can gain access to their pensions.
1090
In conclusion, I was heartened by the comments of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), especially about the opportunity that debates such as this provide to raise cases and concerns, and about how it is important that the Minister who replies, even if he does not have time to deal with all the matters raised, ensures that they are followed through. I look forward to receiving the results of that in relation to the cases that I have raised today. Like other hon. Members, I have many such constituency cases brought to my attention every year, and these few opportunities to raise them in the House are very precious.
I hope that the matters raised will be taken forward. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my brief remarks, and I pass on my best wishes for this season to you, to officers of the House, to hon. Members and, most importantly, to my constituents.
6.7 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Nobody knows better than you and the other occupants of the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, the importance of timing. Timing is critical in this House; it is important when somebody makes a killer intervention and in terms of the order in which Members speak. I am conscious, too, that the time that I take to make my remarks is important to a number of Opposition Back Benchers. I therefore promise that I shall try to ensure that the time that I take is commensurate with the importance of the subject matter with which I must deal.
When the Government produce a Green Paper two days before the winter recess, one can tell that the timing is critical—and not by chance. The Green Paper on pensions is about timing because nothing is more important than the time at which we choose to get involved in preparing a pension for our future and for our future well-being in retirement. The savings gap in this country is £27 billion. It has been estimated that every person in this country—pre-retirement—needs to save an extra £1,400 per year to prepare adequately for retirement. The timing issue that I wish to put to the Minister, however, is one that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions did not answer the other day.
The Secretary of State announced many important things including the review to be conducted by Adair Turner into compulsion. He did not, however, announce the time scale for that review, which is absolutely critical, because we have waited long enough in this House to deal with compulsion once and for all. There cannot be many sensible financial commentators in this country who believe that we can continue with a voluntary system to prepare our population adequately for their old age, and that we can prepare for a decent pension in old age without compulsion. I am not suggesting that work will not be done on the matter or that the report that Adair Turner and the members of his commission will produce will not be valuable. However, the work is urgent and the timing is critical, and I urge the Government to make an announcement as to when it will take place.
The fact that a Green Paper is published two days before the Christmas recess means that it will not be given the full blazon of publicity by the Government, but the fact that the Cabinet Office's "Game Plan:

1091
A Strategy for Delivering Government Sport and Physical Activity Objectives" has been published on the final day before the recess—19 December—is a clear sign of contempt for the document. The document relates to some of the most important and fundamental issues facing all Departments, not just the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. For it to have been published today and for it not to have reached the Table Office until just before 1 o'clock so that hon. Members did not even have the chance to read it properly before this debate is a great pity.
Fortunately, I have spent many hours waiting to contribute to the debate, and I have had the chance to peruse the document with some care. I shall therefore consider some of the issues that it raises. My first point relates to the elements that it has failed to address altogether. We will not have the fundamental change in participation in sport and physical activity that the document argues for until we take seriously the issue of making it a statutory obligation upon local authorities to make provision for sport, physical activity and leisure services in the area under their jurisdiction. The fact that that question has been fudged in the document—it is not even mentioned, as far as I can see—means that the document cannot deliver to the time scales that it has set for what it wishes to achieve.
The document also fails to extend the powers of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to call in the development or sale of private playing fields. I welcome the moves that the Government took at the beginning of their period of office. Before then, playing fields were being sold off at the rate of 40 a month. The figure has now fallen to two a month, and I welcome that. It is a tremendous decrease, and I know that even those two a month are examined extremely carefully, but the Secretary of State should have been given increased powers to call in the development or sale of private playing fields.
From what I can tell in the time that I have had to peruse the document, it also fails to use the tax system to incentivise people to invest in their health. Small and medium-sized businesses should be able to provide their employees with tax-free gym membership. VAT on personal fitness equipment could also be reduced, as a way of incentivising individuals and businesses to get people engaged in physical activity.
Timing is critical. When a Department produces a 223-page document in which the targets it sets for achieving the goals is 2020—in 18 years' time—and it does not specify the individual medium-term targets on the way to that goal, that is another clear sign that it does not expect to be held to account for what it says it wishes to deliver. That is a great pity. What the document wants to deliver is commendable. It sets out a participation target among the population of 70 per cent., but that is by 2020. It is vital that we have key stages along that route to define exactly what medium-level physical activity and extensive physical activity constitute so that we know what the Government are trying to achieve at each stage and how they measure up against delivery.
If timing is important, then so is structure. One of the most important and radical things that the document does is to look seriously at the delivery mechanism of the Government and their capability to deliver what they want to achieve within the current structure. It is not
1092
possible within a departmental system of government to deliver many of the policies that we wish to achieve. That is particularly the case in sport. Sport does not just have an impact on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; many of the most profound impacts of participating in sport come under the mantle of the Department of Health. The National Audit Office has shown that the cost of obesity to the country is approximately £2 billion each year, some £0.5 billion of which is a direct cost to the national health service.
This country spends £1 a head on sport and physical activity per year. We spend more than £800 a head on our national health service per year. The imbalance is blindingly obvious. If we take £10 out of the £800 and add it to the £1, the preventive medical benefits of engaging in sport to combat obesity, coronary heart disease and diabetes are clear. It would save the Government money instead of costing them money. But a departmental system of government cannot deliver that because it has to focus on this year's departmental targets. A Department would have to say, "If we take this £10 and give it to another Department to achieve its objectives, can we actually show that we are going to match up to the short and medium-term targets that our Department has been set?" Of course the answer would often be no. The same thing happens in the Home Office. It realises the benefits of sport and of engaging young people in physical activity, but it cannot deliver through sport because that is not part of its remit. Home Office targets are not seen to be met by putting money into sport.
The document contains an important initiative. It recommends establishing SPAB, a cross-departmental sport and physical activity board, to pull together out of all the Departments—the Department for Education and Skills, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Office, the DCMS and the Department of Health—the resources necessary to invest in our sporting infrastructure. So we have the beginnings of lateral thinking about the straitjacket that the Government have got themselves into for years. Through departmental funding and short and medium-term target-setting, we cannot create across Government a body dedicated to delivering many of our policy initiatives. I hope that the document will not have a lifespan of just four hours of parliamentary debate this afternoon. If it is to achieve its goals by 2020, we must wish it much more discussion and a better wind than that.
I have spoken about time. There is perhaps no more moving or eloquent treatise on time than in the Book of Ecclesiastes, where the prophet teaches that there is a time to be born and a time to die. Earlier this week my good friend and constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Daisley) issued a public statement advising that following recent surgery, doctors had advised him that he had only a short time to live.
Paul has devoted his life to serving the people of Brent. In the council and in Parliament he has constantly battled to improve their lives. Too often in life, we fail to say thank you to people before the time is too late. With characteristic bravery, Paul is publicly facing up to the doctors' diagnosis. We wish them to be wrong. We wish Paul more time, but I could not let this

1093
opportunity pass to let him know and to state publicly the depth of love and respect that the people of our borough of Brent bear him for all that he has given to us.
6.21 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: May I tell the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) that that sentiment is shared throughout the House, and particularly on the Conservative Benches?
I should like to raise the case of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' quinquennial review of Horticulture Research International, its effect on the HRI station at Efford in my constituency and the effect that it would have on jobs. Clearly, the team at Efford impressed those conducting the quinquennial review. The review's conclusions relating to Efford state:
"Efford has an inspirational site manager who is taking active steps to remove the deficit and seek new income sources within the capability of the site. Although we consider that closure may be the best option financially, we recommend that Efford should receive the opportunity to consult with the local grower industry and scientific community about new income opportunities as an alternative to closure".
The inspirational site manager mentioned is Mr. Ray Tucker, who has an excellent support staff in his work force. He enjoys support from the local industry, as I know from a number of horticulturists who have written to me. There is, however, a problem. Inspirational management is important, as is the quality of the work force and the support of industry, but resources are also needed. Mr. Tucker cannot he expected to manage existing projects very well, and at the same time to go out and find additional sources of income—to market Efford.
I use the word "cannot" loosely, because clearly Mr. Tucker is doing that, and doing so sufficiently well as to have produced the complimentary reference in the report. However, if Efford is to be given its chance to make itself viable, it needs to develop the business by acquiring an additional manager to manage projects, so that Mr. Tucker can get out there and win the business for Efford. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to raise with Lord Whitty the possibility of allowing Efford to recruit such a person, notwithstanding the current moratorium that the Department has placed on HRI. I hope that the Minister will be able to meet me, and perhaps Mr. Tucker, to discuss the matter.
6.24 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I begin by echoing the comments of other hon. Members in wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, your staff and all Officers of the House a very happy Christmas. I thank you for your kindness and courtesy over the past 12 months.
This has been a wonderful year for our country. We have celebrated the golden jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It has been a national celebration and I congratulate everybody in the country who organised street parties and celebrations to commemorate this momentous year in the history of our country. I was privileged to attend 50 golden jubilee events in my constituency of Romford. We should be proud of this wonderful year that we have celebrated. Long may Her Majesty reign over us.
1094
I wish to raise one or two constituency issues—I shall be brief because I am aware of the short amount of time left. Hon. Members may have witnessed my question to the Prime Minister yesterday, when I asked him why his constituency of Sedgefield will receive an increase in local government grant that is nearly three times as much as the increase received by the London borough of Havering—Havering's increase is 3.5 per cent. and Sedgefield's is 8.9 per cent. The Prime Minister failed to answer.
As the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) will confirm, Havering has been shortchanged for many years under both Governments. That is borne out by a multitude of published figures. We are suffering in many other ways, too. Collier Row police station in my constituency has been closed, and we lost a fire engine from Hornchurch.
We are also suffering through a lack of funding through central Government, which must be addressed. Many pensioners are concerned at the prospect of losing their free bus pass. I support the Freedom pass, which should be extended throughout the United Kingdom to allow all pensioners to travel freely. It would give them something back in their later years for paying their taxes all their lives and fighting for their country. They deserve better than they are getting, and I would argue with anyone who suggested that the free bus pass should be removed.
Finally, in this golden jubilee year, why can we not fly the Union flag all year round from the Houses of Parliament, as her Majesty does from Buckingham palace when she is not in residence? It is a disgrace that Portcullis House's flagpole has not been used since the building was opened. In 2003 can we please see the flag of our country flying throughout the year to show that Members of the United Kingdom Parliament are proud of our heritage, our history and our nation?
6.28 pm
John Barrett: I shall use my two minutes wisely and join my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) in wishing everybody a happy Christmas. I have five issues to raise in my two minutes.
The misuse of fireworks is a big issue in my constituency, and I look forward to the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) making progress in the year ahead.
Post office closure is another major issue. More than 7,000 people in Edinburgh, West signed my petition to fight for the retention of the local post offices. Most of those are in urban areas, but there are also problems in rural communities where, because of the uncertainty of the post offices' future income, it is difficult to know whether postmasters and postmistresses will be able to take over the businesses.
On Iraq, I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on his passionate speech, to which I would only add that there is no hurry to move ahead with military action. Liberal Democrat Members have previously mentioned the need for a debate on this issue in the House, but we must let the weapons inspectors do their job.

1095
The remaining two issues are not so much constituency as global matters. The first is the food crisis in southern Africa. While we are enjoying our Christmas dinners, people in Africa are about to experience another famine. Eritrea is now experiencing pre-famine conditions. On top of that, it faces the scourge of AIDS. These people are the most vulnerable in the world today and the best Christmas present that they could get would be for the international community to respond, feed them, lift them out of poverty and ensure that next Christmas, they will be able to feed themselves.
6.29 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Without hesitation, deviation or repetition, I, too, give my best wishes for the season to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Officers of the House. I had hoped to address the House in relation to phoenix traders, but I shall simply mention the issue in the hope that a little bit of Christmas magic might rub off in the Adjournment debate ballots in the new year.
There is one pressing matter that I should like to bring to Floor of the House, which caused me considerable distress when I came across a report about it yesterday in The Scotsman, and I hope that the Minister will raise the issue with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. It appears that somebody going by the name of Professor Eckhard Weidner of a place apparently called Bochum university has developed instant powdered whisky. I have to say that I am shocked and bereft at that development. Such a thing can only be regarded as an abomination.
I shall be spending Christmas in Orkney in my constituency, where we have Highland Park and Scapa, two of the finest single malt whiskies. Thereafter, I shall be on Islay with my parents, where there are no fewer than eight magnificent single malt whiskies. Can we have assurances from the Department of Trade and Industry that that is the proper sort of dram with which to celebrate Hogmanay, and that we will have none of these powdered abominations?
6.31 pm
Mr. Greg Knight: I should like to begin by saying that we were shocked to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) about his colleague, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Daisley). We were not aware of those details and our thoughts are with him and his family at this difficult time. I am sure that I speak not only for my party, but for the others whose Members sit on the Opposition Benches.
We have had a very wide-ranging, constructive and good-natured debate, which I think has shown the House at its best. Before I refer to what others have said, however, I should like to raise one issue of my own, harking back to a theme that has featured in many of the speeches: the Government's road policy.
Both this week and last, the Secretary of State for Transport announced a number of changes to his policy, which some say smacked of a U-turn. I welcome his announcements. The Opposition feel that they are too little, too late, but I do not want to take up time by making party political points. The Government are now moving in the right direction. Although I thought that it
1096
was disgraceful that no road schemes were included for East Yorkshire, I was heartened by what the Transport Secretary had to say towards the end of his statement last week when he told us that further studies would look at corridors in a number of areas, including "through Yorkshire".
I can therefore live in hope. In particular, I hope that the transport team will look at the inadequacies of both the A614 and the A165, which run through my constituency. As the Minister may know, the A614 is the main route from the motorway network to the north-east's premier seaside resort, Bridlington, which I have the honour of representing, and it is badly in need of widening. In addition, on some stretches of that road—including, for example, where it passes through the village of Middleton-on-the-Wolds—a bypass is long overdue. I do not expect the Minister who is winding up the debate to give me a snap answer, but I ask him to pass on to the Transport Secretary my genuine concerns about the need to upgrade those two roads.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House have raised many issues. If I may, I should like to comment on only some of them, as I do not have much time. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made an effective attack on the Lib Dem administration running Hull council, but he cannot claim the high ground on that issue, because of his party's murky record in running the same authority. An effective council leadership is in the interests of the future of Kingston-upon-Hull. That is yet to happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) made a somewhat intemperate speech by his standards. He was clearly angry, but he made an effective case. I advise any Conservative campaigner to buy today's Hansard and read my hon. Friend's contribution before going canvassing. It was a tour de force. I understand why my hon. Friend is not present to hear the winding-up speeches. Anyone who knows him realises that when he is absent from the Chamber, he is in his constituency.
Morecambe and Lunesdale is a long way from Sutton Coldfield and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) painted a rather different picture. She initially presented a rose-tinted view of life in the UK under new Labour, but as she developed her case, I was heartened by the criticisms of her party that she introduced into her speech. Conservative Members appreciate her frankness. She said that transport was a disaster, and she is right. She said that farmers were having a terrible time and again she is right. She was also right to say that guesthouse owners were having a bad time. If she never makes it to new Labour's Front Bench, her willingness to tell the unvarnished truth will he the reason.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) broke his vow of silence as a Chief Whip and gave us his views on several issues. I was intrigued by his recollections of early Liberal pension policy under which it appears that the police clubbed over-eager pensioners on the head. He did not say whether that

1097
remained Liberal Democrat policy, although those of us who have studied his tax policy know that it would clobber us all.
Mr. Stunell: I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not party policy.
Mr. Knight: At least not this week. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's work on the Modernisation Committee, on which we both serve. I support his comments about a visitor centre, but those who campaign for it should appreciate that the House is, first and foremost, a working building. Space on the parliamentary estate is at such a premium that the more I look into the matter, the more I perceive an overwhelming case for a visitor centre outside it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees. The House of Commons Commission is considering the matter.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made a serious, detailed and thorough contribution. His allegations clearly warrant a full investigation. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will respond positively to his speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) told us about the dire predicament of the national health service in his constituency. The problem is not confined to his region. East Yorkshire also has difficulties, which I am trying to resolve. Ministers need to take action, and I hope that the health team will receive a full report of my hon. Friend's remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned flooding. He may not know it, but he could have prayed in aid the report of the Institution of Civil Engineers, which stated that Government policy was inadequate and piecemeal and that spending on flood defences should be doubled. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will pass on my hon. Friend's concerns to DEFRA. I also hope that, in view of clearly changing weather patterns, the Government will accept that more needs to be done.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) had the courtesy to tell me that he would not be present for the winding-up speeches because he had to be back in his constituency. He raised some serious concerns about Wandsworth prison. The Home Office needs to examine those matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) expressed her congratulations on and enthusiasm for the Government's transport U-turn. I hope that that enthusiasm is not premature, that further road-building programmes will be announced and that the Government will consider a number of new, innovative schemes to tackle congestion that are not necessarily anti-motorist. They could consider the example of the United States, which is taking the lead in that area. On health, we were pleasantly surprised by my hon. Friend's willingness to audition for the Hattie Jacques role in "Carry on Matron". We shall watch her next move in that regard with interest.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) made an interesting contribution. He spoke about vandalism on and around the tube. All Members are with him in being against such behaviour, but he moved on to
1098
vandalism of another type—nationalisation without compensation, of which he is in favour. At that point, he lost the support of this side of the House. Although we cannot agree with everything he said, he made a number of points about the need for people to feel safe when they travel on the tube if we are to attract more passengers to it. If he decides to spurn the tube during the Christmas recess, get his Armstrong Siddley car out of the garage and drive north to East Yorkshire, he will be most welcome to call at the Knight residence.
Jeremy Corbyn: How about filling up the car for the journey back?
Mr. Knight: I will not do that, because I know what it does to the gallon.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) made an interesting point about parish councils, which has been brought to my attention as well. The new rules are too heavy-handed. I hope that the Government, in the same spirit in which they are reconsidering road building, may be prepared to look again at the rules covering parish councils. In my constituency, at least two people have resigned because they feel that the new rules are too intrusive. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend's comments on broadband, which is essential if rural areas are to be able to compete with urban.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who is a rare but welcome free spirit on the Government Benches, called for effective implementation of deterrent sentencing and a more visible police presence. We can agree with him on that. He certainly struck a chord on the Opposition Benches, not only in those remarks but in what he had to say about over-regulation. He referred to over-regulation in the NHS producing a result that none of us wants, but that is not confined to the NHS. For example, I understand that if a speaker—part of the public address system—fails in one railway carriage, the Health and Safety Executive takes the train off the track and it cannot be run until the speaker is repaired. That is mindless over-regulation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) referred to truancy. I can say one thing with certainty: he is never a truant from these Adjournment debates and we look forward to the wide-ranging contributions that he makes on behalf of his constituents. If someone had listened to his opening remarks and then left the Chamber, they would have a different impression from the rest of us of what he was saying. He started talking about the Swedish model and ended up talking about the breeding season. In between, he raised a number of important constituency matters.
I have heard only one speech by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), and I was not sure whether I would agree with much of what he had to say today. However, I was pleasantly surprised to agree with him on all four issues that he raised: the need for road improvements, the problems of pig farming, the unfair power that supermarkets have over prices and lax labelling provisions that often do not allow the British housewife to know whether she is buying a product produced in Britain. I have personal knowledge of restaurants not only not disclosing where food is from, but sometimes deliberately mislabelling it as local to encourage customers to order it.

1099
I have only one other matter to raise before the Minister gets to his feet. I remind him and the House of the words said by Benjamin Disraeli to a constituent on 24 December 1869, with which I associate myself: merry Christmas.
6.45 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Like all pre-recess Adjournment debates, this one has been wide-ranging and highly educational. We have heard of issues ranging from continuing concern about the situation in Burma to the problem of badgers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), which has forced a conversion in the hon. Gentleman's opinion.
I am afraid that because of the time limit I shall not be able to respond to all Members. I am grateful, in advance, for the tolerance of those to whom I cannot respond. I had 50 minutes in which to speak before the summer recess and I have only 15 now, so Members will get less at the Dispatch Box and more in writing; but I will try not to make the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) wait six months for a response, which was the treatment meted out to her before. I shall try to ensure that all Members are given timely responses.
As is traditional in these debates, some Members concentrated on constituency matters while others took the opportunity to highlight particular interests that would not usually have an airing, or discussed the broad sweep of politics and the state of the nation—and, indeed, the world. Some ranged over all three subjects. These debates always provide a good indication of the amount of interest in particular issues. I shall try to respond to Members in order of the number of issues raised in relation to their chosen subjects. It will not surprise most to learn that health was raised most often.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) described the state of the NHS as dire. He is not usually given to hyperbole, and that is not a description I recognise or, I think, one that my constituents would recognise. Despite the huge challenges facing the NHS, all the research shows, all the opinion polls show and most of our local newspapers show that the vast majority of people feel they are receiving a very good service. It needs to improve, of course, which is why we are investing in it. Some of the other issues raised by Members illustrate the importance of ensuring that reform accompanies that investment.
The hon. Gentleman raised specific issues about his local foot care services, Haslar hospital and the March meeting. I will ensure that he receives a response. I will also ensure that a response is given to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who mentioned the problem at Good Hope hospital.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned hospital-acquired infections. We have suffered one in our local hospital, a three-star hospital which I hope the hon. Lady will agree is excellent. During the debate I have managed to find out that the infection she referred to is not connected with hygiene. I do not want to go into the details, because they are rather gruesome, but it is airborne. Anyway, I agree with the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) that the hon. Lady will make an excellent matron, when they come back.
1100
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) spoke of the shortage of young GPs in his constituency. That is a problem in many areas, partly because it takes five years to train a doctor and the last Government cut training numbers. We have set up two medical schools, the first to be set up since the 1960s. Moreover, I think that I am right in saying that funds for my hon. Friend's primary care trust will increase by more than 30 per cent. over the next three years, so I hope he will soon see an improvement.
A number of Members referred to the problem of finding NHS dentists. The Government are aware of the problem. We have committed an extra £100 million to NHS dentistry in the last two years. The number of dentists has risen in the past year, and it has risen significantly since September 1997. I accept, however, that much more needs to be done.
The hon. Member for Southend, West said that his experiences with a Swedish model might help the Government come to the right decision on delayed discharges. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman feed his experiences into the Bill currently going through the House.
What emerged from the speeches about the health service is the fact that there is still a wide and unacceptable variation in care standards from one hospital to another—the two may not be far from each other—and between primary care trusts. That shows that, at the same time as providing extra resources, it is important that we ensure good management and quality of care, so that there is no inequality of treatment.
The next most popular issue that hon. Members raised was transport. That is not surprising, as these debates are a great opportunity for Members to refer to their pet transport schemes. I am afraid that I do not intend to go through all of them, much as I am tempted to do so, because I do not have the time, but I shall ensure that hon. Members receive responses to their points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) thought that delivery on transport was the area on which the Government have made least progress. I agree with her: she is absolutely right. I do not want to rehearse the reasons for that, as they have been much rehearsed in recent days, not least in the statements that the Secretary of State for Transport has given to the House. We have committed £180 billion over the next 10 years, and we are only 18 months into that 10-year plan. I remind hon. Members that we are the only major economy in the developed world that has increased public spending on the whole gamut of public services. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members who constantly ask for extra spending should sometimes recognise that fact.
I shall get the Department to respond regarding the individual schemes mentioned by the hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton and for Southend, West, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight).
Crime was the third most popular issue raised. The remarks of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) would lead people to believe that crime has not fallen more than 20 per cent. since 1997, which it has. This is the first incoming Government since the

1101
second world war who have got crime down. Police numbers nationally—not in every part of the country, but certainly in my area—are at record levels.
My hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale and for Hornchurch, and the hon. Members for Southend, West and for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised specific concerns about crime and antisocial behaviour in their areas. I am sure that they are aware of the legislation being introduced on antisocial behaviour, the criminal justice system, the courts and sentencing system and licensing, all of which should have a positive impact on those problems. I hope that those hon. Members will feed their views in to the consultation on those Bills as they go through the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made an excellent and well-informed speech about the problems facing Wandsworth prison and prison overcrowding in general. I shall ensure that he receives a comprehensive response from the Home Office to the points that he made.
The issue of pensions was raised by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, who to my surprise, and probably to the surprise of most Members of the House, said that under the Tories our pension system was the envy of Europe. Tell that to the 3 million or more pensioners who were living in poverty when Labour came to power. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) asked when Adair Turner's review would be completed. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that, but I shall find out and let him know. He also made a number of points about physical exercise with which I fully concur.
There were the usual complaints about bad councils. We should sometimes stand back and congratulate our councillors, most of whom do a good job and work hard for little material gain. Most councils do a good job, but it is right that poor councils should be named and shamed. That is exactly what the Government are doing. My hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) are right to complain about their local Liberal Democrat-run councils, because they have both been officially designated as poor under our recent comprehensive performance assessment. The best remedy for the voters of Hull and Islington is to make their feelings plain at the next local elections.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) rightly referred to the international situation. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove repeated the Liberal Democrats' demand, which we recently debated in the House and which was overwhelmingly rejected, that there must be a new vote before any military action is taken. The Government have made their position clear: that is our preference, but it is the safety of the men and women in our armed forces that is of paramount importance. No Government have entered into a commitment such as the Liberal Democrats are demanding, and no Government ever would.
I like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North very much, but I fundamentally disagree with him on the Iraq issue. I hope that he can agree with me
1102
that it is important that we support the United Nations process, the work of the inspectors, and the integrity of the UN and its resolutions, and that perhaps occasionally we could congratulate the Government on securing resolution 1441, which makes solving this problem peacefully far more likely.
A number of hon. Members raised individual constituency issues to which I shall get the relevant Departments to respond. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned a local flooding problem that affects mobile homes. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) discussed the proposed closure of a post office in his constituency; my hon. Friend the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) talked about problems with trading schemes; the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) discussed the closure of an airport in his constituency; the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) spoke about the problems facing Horticulture Research International at Efford, in his constituency; the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) spoke about a number of problems affecting his constituency; my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) mentioned the loophole, as he sees it, in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, and spoke about changes to the asylum rules; and in drawing on his great length and breadth of experience, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) made some very interesting points about corporate governance. I will ensure that all those issues are drawn to the attention of the Departments concerned, and I hope that Members will forgive me if I have not managed to answer them in detail. [Interruption.] I apologise for not managing to respond to all the specific points that were raised.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) made what sounded to me like a series of demands for more money; well, he should talk to the shadow Chancellor about that. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that local government spending has risen by 25 per cent. under this Government, and that it was cut by 6 per cent. under the Major Government. Perhaps he needs to let his constituents know about that.
At this time of year, and particularly during the Christmas adjournment, it is right that we stand back and contemplate the state of the nation and, indeed, of the world. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield described himself as a Victor Meldrew figure, but that was not fair. He is not nearly as old as Victor Meldrew; however, his litany of complaints did somewhat remind me of Victor. I should point out to the Opposition that simply repeating that everything in Britain is a disaster does not get us very far in our political discourse. It is simply not true; indeed, the latest opinion polls show that, were there a general election today, the hon. Gentleman's party would return even fewer Members than it returned only 18 months ago, when it was brutally rejected by the electorate.
A much fairer and more accurate assessment was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, who talked about the improvements that her constituents have experienced. In doing so, she admitted that there is a lot still to do, and that is absolutely true. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) said that we should ask

1103
whether the lives of our constituents have improved, and with one or two exceptions, he answered with a resounding yes.
I have discovered that part of the job of a politician, and particularly of a Minister, is being a permanent optimist. As politicians, we should all believe in the possibility of improving our country and the way in which it is run. I used to wonder whether I was the only person who woke up in the morning to give thanks for the fact that we live now, and not in a previous age—until I read the bumper Christmas and new year edition of The Spectator, which is no supporter of, or sympathiser with, this Government. I was delighted to read an article by Mr. Harry Mount entitled "The Blessings of Britain". He urges us to stop moaning, and lists the 26 things that we should be grateful for. I should say that some of them are rather idiosyncratic, and that I myself am not grateful for them; however, he is, so I am happy.
At Christmas, it is indeed sometimes worth standing back and thinking of some things that we can be grateful for. For example, we can be grateful for the fact that we live in a freer and more tolerant society than anyone else on these wonderful islands has ever lived in; and for the fact that, to quote a former Conservative Prime Minister,
"most of our people have never had it so good."
In wishing you and everyone else a merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should say that I hope that, when we go back to our constituencies, we will raise a toast to celebrate some of those things with genuine Orkney and Shetland Isles whisky, and certainly not with the outrageous white powder, instant imitation that is being produced in Bochum.

Education Funding
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
6.59 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: I am enormously grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter again in the House. In this season of good will it is right that I should follow the example set by hon. Members in the previous debate and wish a happy Christmas to all those present in the Chamber, and to all those beyond who have served hon. Members so well in the past year.
Not everything is bad in Worcestershire. Our police, fire, and social services, as well as our schools, may all be underfunded, and our hospitals may be at breaking point, but tomorrow morning will find me at the opening of the Wyre Piddle bypass. That road is a great Christmas present to my constituents from this Government and, specifically, from the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), whom I am delighted to see in his place. I thank him publicly once again for that road, and I thank his ministerial successor for the money to begin the other crucial link in the strategic route from junction 6 of the M5 to Evesham, known as the Squires link. For that, the Government have my sincere thanks. After all, this is the season good will.
But—and there is a but—the education spending settlement announced two weeks ago was nowhere near as welcome as those two roads. This debate is about giving Worcestershire's children an equal opportunity to succeed, and that is what they are being denied.
I am grateful for the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friends the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), and of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith). It is good to see them here. I know that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) wanted to be here, but he chose today to move home. Anyone foolish enough to move six days before Christmas deserves our sympathy, not our condemnation. In any case, he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Minister's Department, so he could not have spoken in the debate. That is a shame, as I should have liked to hear what he had to say—but that will happen another day.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) had hoped to be here, but now finds that he cannot. In a letter of apology to me yesterday, he wrote:
"All I want is the truth stated using comparable figures. If you can get this you really will have achieved something."
I am indeed in search of the truth, and my colleagues and I will listen carefully to what the Minister says in his speech later.
Of course, we acknowledge that there have been real-terms increases in funding for education across the country. The golden economic inheritance of this Government from their Conservative predecessor made that possible. However, this debate is not about how much more Worcestershire may or may not have got in absolute terms. It is about the county's position in the funding table relative to other similar and neighbouring education authorities.

1105
I welcome today's announcement on capital for access measures, but I am concerned about revenue—the year-on-year funding for the education that our children need.
This debate must also be set in the wider context of the extraordinary demands placed on teachers, across the country and in Worcestershire. Local teachers feel under great pressure. As Heather Staite, who works at St. Egwins middle school in Evesham, said to me:
"Schools are not given enough time or resources or money to 'implement' all the strategies that they are bombarded with."
That is the subject of another debate on another day. Critically—and it is the central reason for this debate—Worcestershire has continued, and looks set to continue, to get less than its fair share of national increases in education funding. For schools in Worcestershire, a 4.2 per cent. increase per pupil is basically a standstill budget. With the employers' national insurance contribution increase coming into effect from April next year, the upper pay scale 2 payments and a likely teachers' pay settlement in excess of 2.5 per cent.—some say it will be as high as 3.5 per cent.—Worcestershire will end up with something very close to zero in real terms.
All that is in complete contradiction to the assurances given by the former Secretary of State, then the Schools Standards Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris). Replying to a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire, she said:
"I cannot in all honesty explain why children in Worcestershire get less money than children in Wiltshire … the system is irrational … It is a historic system, which does not serve us well."
Later, she added:
"I am not seeking to defend a formula that ill serves the children of Worcestershire—that would be dishonourable and dishonest. I am saying that we are trying our best, with all reasonable speed, to change that. We are the Government who have given a pledge that that will change."—[Official Report, 1 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 562–564]
In a debate that I initiated on 24 October 2001 in Westminster Hall, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) said that
"the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has … now clearly committed itself to introducing a fairer formula on 1 April 2003. That is not a possibility or an aspiration but an unequivocal commitment that there will be a new, fairer and more even SSA formula not only for education, but for local government generally. It will make a significant difference to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and to mine."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 128WH.]
In fact, the gap between Worcestershire and Wiltshire—and between Worcestershire and all the counties and metropolitan authorities bordering it—has grown.
Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend makes a vital point about the growing gap between expenditure in Worcester and in comparable counties. Does he accept that the effect is beginning to be felt, certainly in my constituency? School sports and
1106
drama facilities are now worse in many cases than those of comparable counties nearby. That is a direct result of the gap that my hon. Friend has so brilliantly described.
Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend is entirely right and, if time permits, I will cite some examples of what that has meant for individual schools later in my remarks.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but I want the Minister to understand that it is not just a question of comparing us with the shire counties. My constituency abuts Birmingham and many head teachers in my constituency who have worked there tell me that they had so much money in Birmingham that they did not know where to spend it. We have 4.2 per cent. and Birmingham is getting 7 per cent. on top of an already much bigger budget, which gives high schools in excess of £500 per pupil per year extra. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would take that into account in his excellent speech on which I congratulate him.
Mr. Luff: I will be dealing specifically with the Birmingham question later. However, my hon. Friend is right—the comparison with Birmingham is becoming very difficult to sustain or justify.
The pledges that the Government made in debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall have been broken. Worcestershire has been awarded a 4.2 per cent. increase in funding per pupil. The average for the shire counties was 4.4 per cent. For England as a whole it was 5.2 per cent., for Gloucestershire—our neighbour—5 per cent., for Warwickshire 7 per cent. and for Birmingham and Dudley also 7 per cent. As Worcestershire was not getting much to begin with, that means that the cash gap between us and the English average will have increased, not reduced as Ministers promised. Worcestershire is now 33rd out of 34 counties on education funding per pupil.
Today's debate has been made more complicated by the introduction of the new formula, which makes comparisons with past settlements more difficult to draw. So let us remind ourselves what the new formula was supposed to achieve—stability, simplicity, robustness and, most importantly, fairness.
The new system will prove to be unstable. It is amazing that a new formula has had to have such floors and ceilings in it to slow the amount of change that it is generating. This will lead to a clamour from the winners to remove the ceilings. Bradford should have had an increase of £21 million, but it got £14 million. It feels short-changed to the tune of £7 million. Similar considerations apply to Birmingham. Because of the way that it is made up, the winners will continue to have their position reinforced year on year. No one knows what the long-term effects of the system will be.
As for simplicity, I challenge the Minister, even with his considerable intellectual skills, to stand up in front of a group of parents, governors and teachers and explain in, say, 15 minutes, exactly how the new formula works. He would have to explain, for example, how income support interacts with the working families tax credit, and its successor in the spring, as a deprivation indicator; what met and unmet educational needs are; why, in meeting these needs, the Government have gone

1107
for the medium threshold when the F40 group sent 53,000 letters asking for the high threshold; why Worcestershire does not receive the area cost adjustment when Warwickshire and Gloucestershire do, and so on. Worcestershire county council has asked these questions of the Government and has had no answers.
As one head teacher said to me:
"For a formula that is supposed to be transparent the data produced by the ODPM and the DfES is at best opaque and one might suspect has been made so detailed as to obstruct understanding."
As for robustness, there are already many rumours circulating in local government that Ministers are planning to engage in tweaking the formula in future years, hardly a sign of strength or belief that what they are doing is correct.
As for fairness, the most important element, how can a system be fair that values my constituents' children as needing £333 less than the top county of East Sussex, £176 less than the average county of Lincolnshire and £98 and £90 less than our neighbours in Warwickshire and Gloucestershire? All children in similar circumstances should be equally valued. That is the point.
Mrs. Mulryne, head teacher of Pebworth first school—a school with a Warwickshire postcode—told me:
"The mismatch between Worcestershire and Warwickshire funding is striking and very disappointing."
Mike Appleby, head teacher of Broadway first school, shares this view. Broadway is a limb of Worcestershire that juts into Gloucestershire, surrounded on three sides by its neighbouring county. He wrote to me to say:
"All schools are judged by their results—such as Ofsted inspections—but all schools are not being given an equal chance of providing the necessary equipment or staffing because of the disparity in the funding arrangements. Schools that are only two miles apart should receive the same funding per pupil, however this is not the case. Surely Worcestershire children are worth the same level of investment as a child in Gloucestershire or Warwickshire…If this government believes in giving everyone a fair and equal chance to better themselves then this system of funding must be changed."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove has already pointed out, the comparison with Birmingham and Dudley is even worse. Another local head teacher wrote to me:
"Staggeringly the gap between ourselves and the Birmingham schools actually increases. The gap between my school and a similar size school in Birmingham looks to be even larger under this funding system than the previous one. Indeed, it now looks to be in excess of £750,000."
That is for one school, each year.
We all acknowledge that Birmingham has deprivation that must be addressed with extra resources: it is how much extra that is at issue. After all, there is plenty of poverty, drug abuse and social exclusion in Worcestershire, too, so what that head teacher went on to say is important. I have heard other head teachers say it, too—it reflects exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove. The head teacher said:
"It is galling in the extreme to hear from colleague headteachers in Birmingham that they have so much money they don't know what to spend it on next, when we in Worcestershire are having to
1108
increase class sizes, make do and mend with outdated computer equipment and most galling of all, lose our best staff to Birmingham schools."
Basic pupil funding has now been introduced and should be welcomed; it is a step in the right direction, but it could have made things much fairer. For example, top-ups, especially the area cost adjustment, still irrationally disadvantage Worcestershire. Actual teaching costs in areas that receive the adjustment are less than 3 per cent. higher than ours—indeed, sometimes they are lower—yet they receive between 12 per cent. and 16 per cent. higher funding. The cost of employing teachers, which is about three quarters of all educational costs, is higher in Worcestershire than in 61 other council areas, including Oxfordshire, East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire and Surrey—all counties that receive extra funding because their costs are supposed to be higher.
In July, I analysed a document deposited in the Library that shows that Worcestershire teachers are, on average, paid more than their counterparts in England. Excluding the very high salaries paid in London, but adding in all the city areas such as Birmingham and all the counties of south-east England, the average salary paid to teachers last year was £25,103. In Worcestershire, the figure was £25,110—£7 more than the English average, excluding London.
Ministers argue that those other areas face higher recruitment costs, but, apart from London itself, the argument is not sustainable; it just does not hold water. Salaries paid are in accordance with scale rates and I do not believe that schools are finding other ways of spending so much extra cash on boosting teachers' salaries that do not feature in measures of actual teaching costs. I am sure that the Inland Revenue would be interested if they were!
The only fair formula should reflect three things: the real cost of employing teachers; the relative poverty of the area, as measured by average incomes in the area; and any necessary adjustment for special needs, for example, of ethnic communities. That is the only basis for a fair formula.
Locally, some of the county's MPs have been describing the settlement as a victory. If this is victory, I would hate to taste defeat. Even more monstrously, some of them said that, as some local schools had not done well at key stage 2, it might be wrong to give them extra resources. I hope that the Minister does not concur with that argument.
In the recent comprehensive performance assessment, Worcestershire county council scored four out of four for the use of resources. There is precious little waste in Worcestershire. Although I am sure that there is always room for improvement, the taxpayer's pound goes about as far as it can in my constituency, thanks to the county council.
My grievance is not a new one. I challenged the last Conservative Government on the same point. However, things have got worse, both relatively and absolutely, since 1997. What we have been asking for during the past five years—and appear to have been promised by Ministers in successive debates—has not been delivered; expectations have been raised and cruelly dashed.
I accept that there are welcome technical features in the new formula. As I said earlier, a basic entitlement is a good idea, although it should have been given greater

1109
weighting. However, there are serious technical objections, too; above all, the application of the area cost adjustment.
In concluding, I make the following points. We have a national pay scale, a national curriculum and a national inspection system. In other words, teachers are paid the same amount to teach the same things and are inspected in the same way, yet all schools receive vastly different amounts of money.
I could quote from many letters that I have received on the subject from teachers during the past few weeks and months: Charlie Lupton of St. Barnabas Church of England first and middle school; Jenny Batelen of Hartlebury Church of England first school; Gerry Hughes of Chawson community first school; David Coll of Witton middle school; Gerry Burgess of Simon de Montfort middle school; David Kelly of Evesham high school; Bernard Roberts of Prince Henry's high school; David Braham of Bengeworth first school and the chair of Governors of Harvington Church of England first school, Brian Tarling. They have all written broadly to say the same thing.
I want to end by putting on record my deep appreciation of a tireless campaigner for the schools in our county, Mr. Cledwyn-Davies, headteacher of Droitwich Spa high school, who moves to a new position in Swindon in January. His last words to me on school funding in Worcestershire will also serve as my last words in this debate. He says:
"I regret to say I feel disillusioned, disappointed and frustrated by this new formula. It perpetuates iniquities of the past and apart from setting a baseline funding for students across the country it does nothing for the children of Worcestershire. I do feel badly let down by politicians in the Government who promised much and asked us to trust them and be patient. We were certainly patient and had no other option other than to take their word but that has now been found sadly wanting."
7.15 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): In the spirit of Christmas cheer, I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on securing this debate at a much more reasonable hour than the Summer Adjournment debate I answered at 1.50 am in July when you, Madam Deputy-Speaker, were in the Chair and looking much more sprightly than I was. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to offer good Christmas and new year cheer to you.
It was generous of the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge the outstanding work done by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and their campaigning zeal, which has helped to deliver a big change in Worcestershire over the past few years.
I want to address the hon. Gentleman's challenge that I explain why the current system is fairer, simpler and more transparent. That is precisely what I will do in the time available. I am sure he will not mind if I take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to and gratitude for the work of teachers in Worcestershire who have been responsible for significant improvements in the quality of education in the county. For example, since
1110
1998 the percentage of young people leaving primary school reading, writing and counting well has risen from 66 per cent. to 75 per cent. in English, from 56 per cent. to 71 per cent. in maths and from 69 per cent. to 86 per cent. in science. At a time when many people are ready to disparage the teaching profession, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that that represents outstanding work in primary schools. In the early years of secondary education there is impressive evidence of what is happening in Worcestershire in terms of pupils reaching level 5 at aged 14: results are up from 63 to 69 per cent. in maths, and from 61 to 70 per cent. in science. We all hope that that can be translated through into continuing rises in achievement at GCSE, A-level and in vocational qualifications.
The hon. Gentleman robbed me of the chance to rib him by acknowledging that there had been increases in funding in Worcestershire over the past five years. We may disagree about exactly why that has happened and what choices have led to it, but it is worth putting on the record that since the 1998 local government reorganisation Worcestershire's education SSA has increased by over £42 million. That is up 22 per cent. in the space of four years. That formula funding is only part of the picture. The amount that Worcestershire gets through standards fund grants has also increased from £4 million in 1998 to over £20 million this year. The allocation so far for 2003–04 is over £12 million. That can be allied to the increase in school standards grant. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of revenue as well as capital funding. That money, going directly to schools in the same proportion around the country, has more than doubled from £3.7 million in 2000–01 to over £7.7 million this year. It is also worth remarking on the improvements in capital expenditure; in 1998–99 capital expenditure in Worcestershire was about £9.6 million, last year it was £17.7 million and this year it is over £24 million.
The hon. Gentleman was unwise enough to trespass into his own record during the last Conservative Government by claiming that he had pressed hard for improvements in education funding. What did I discover in my detailed researches of 1995, when central Government were cutting by 0.36 per cent in real terms the amount of money going to Worcestershire? Was the hon. Gentleman challenging the Government? I am sorry to disappoint the House, but I am afraid that he was not. He was attacking the county council. He said:
"Last year the county received one of the largest increases in the country for education"—
that was the minus 0.36 per cent—
"and this year has done better than the average … if the county council has cash problems they stem from the mismanagement of that cash."
Mr. Luff: I should like to quote from an article that appeared in the Worcester Evening News on 21 September 1995:
"Worcester MP Peter Luff is pressing Whitehall to give Hereford-Worcester a fairer share of crucial Government grant aid next year. He claims the county has been getting a raw deal compared with other shires"—
and so on. So, in 1995, I was pressing the then Conservative Government.
Mr. Miliband: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but I think that he has just read out his own

1111
press release, even if the local newspaper faithfully repeated it. I am sure that the fact that the council was controlled by the Liberal Democrats at the time had absolutely nothing to do with the attitude that he took.
Let me move on to the aspects of the new system that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is important to restate why we changed the formula. The previous system was out of date and based on even more complicated criteria than those that he criticised in the current system. It did not reflect the division of responsibilities between schools and LEAs, and it was unfair because it was based on a regression of spending patterns from 1991.
The aim in the new system is to ensure that similar pupils in different parts of the country attract the same amount of funding. The system is designed to match the separate responsibilities of schools and LEAs and to be more fairly distributed according to three simple criteria: first, the basic need, to which the hon. Gentleman referred; secondly, the additional educational needs that may relate to poverty or having English as a second language; and, thirdly, the area cost adjustment. It is incumbent on me to address those points.
Of course it is important to say that representatives from Worcestershire and, indeed, parents and governors engaged, with some gusto, in the consultation exercise that we held on the reform of the system. Their representatives played a significant role in the education funding strategy group, which has met many times during the past 18 months. Four of the six local authority members of the group were from the F40 authorities. Of course they were working, as were the Government, on key data that were produced not by us, but independently by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
The hon. Gentleman perfectly reasonably refers to the area cost adjustment, from which Worcestershire, along with 51 other local authorities, does not benefit. The area cost adjustment is designed to recognise that many schools, especially those in London and the south-east, face particular pressures from the extra costs of recruiting and retaining staff. Under the new system, we have recognised that other authorities outside that area face similar problems. That is why the system has been refined to take proper account of local circumstances.
The system recognises that there can be high-cost areas outside the south-east, which is why 99 local authorities now benefit from area adjustment, not 59, as under the previous system. We have been driven by data. I cannot help the fact that the data reveal that Worcestershire is not one of the top 99 high-cost authorities; it is one of the 51 with the lowest costs, based on wage rates, which, we believe, form the right basis on which to calculate local costs.
The allowance is not based on teachers' pay scales—the hon. Gentleman referred to that fact—because they do not reflect differences in the cost of recruiting and retaining staff in different areas of the country. Our system is based on wage differentials in general, which represent a better proxy.
The hon. Gentleman talked about additional educational need. In introducing the new system, we also took account of the additional costs that different pupils face all over the country. The current system, which we are reforming, is based on evidence that is completely out of date and on criteria that are not relevant to different educational circumstances.
1112
I thought that the hon. Gentleman would mention the fact that we have a wider definition of poverty under the new system. The number of children of parents on income support, which has been the basis for the definition of poverty, is now supplemented by the number of children with parents in receipt of the working families tax credit. So we recognise that the children of those in low-paid employment have extra needs. We do not recognise them in the same proportion as those on income support who have extra needs, but there is significant recognition of the working families tax credit in the new system. That is an important step forward in how we understand the nature of deprivation and need.
Sir Michael Spicer: If regression analysis is no longer used, why is the gap between comparable counties and Worcestershire growing at almost exactly the same pace as it was before the Minister's new ideas were introduced?
Mr. Miliband: I am happy to go through each of the counties that the hon. Gentleman believes is comparable, but the reason is that the data show them not to be comparable. He may have his own impression about what constitutes a comparable authority, but the two reasons for differences between the new funding arrangements for LEAs are the number of pupils or their circumstances. The system has been driven by data throughout.
Sir Michael Spicer: It is an extraordinary coincidence that the gap should be growing at exactly the same rate in those counties.
Mr. Miliband: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman about any specific counties that he has in mind, and I shall write to him with full details of the data that have underlined that. The changes have been driven purely by the data that we have received about the different circumstances of children and the number of pupils, which is relevant in the Wiltshire case to which the hon. Gentleman for Mid-Worcestershire referred. I understand that the number of pupils in Wiltshire is growing fast, which is part of the explanation for the different system. I am happy to write to him about that.
I was saying that the new data on working families tax credit are of benefit to Worcester. That is an in-principle change at the foundation of our system, for which many people campaigned hard—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) is complaining from a sedentary position without being entirely clear what she is complaining about. This is good news for Worcestershire because it recognises that, even in areas of high employment, there can still be need. The fact that the system has recognised that should be applauded across the House.
Miss Kirkbride: I shall be sending the Minister's comments to the 1,000 parents, teachers and governors who have written to me on this matter. They say simply that it costs pretty much the same amount of money to buy books and computers and to supply teachers. A basic need therefore exists. Despite what he said

1113
today, they will not understand why the gap has got wider under Labour when it promised something different.
Mr. Miliband: We promised at every stage that similar pupils in different parts of the country would be treated in a similar way. The letter that I have sent to head teachers explains that.
It is also important to recognise the importance of the LEA's role in terms of the situation between different schools. When the money goes to schools, it is distributed on the basis of the formula adopted by the LEA. The LEA has responsibilities to ensure that need is recognised in its formula, as well as in the formula that we send out.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire did not mention sparsity in his remarks—I understand that he was short of time and that he has been concerned about the issue. Perhaps I can use the time remaining to put on record that there is now a significant recognition in the funding formula of the problems faced by sparse authorities. Sparse authorities wanted us to introduce a sparsity factor for secondary schools, which we were not able to do. We have recognised in the primary sector, however, the significant extra costs associated with that factor.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned floors and ceilings. I have been impressed that the authorities on the ceiling have not been bombarding me with requests to get rid of that ceiling and to give them faster increases in funding, as they recognise that there is an inherent fairness in ensuring stability as we introduce the new system. The introduction of floors and ceilings has been an important part of ensuring a degree of consensus about the new system.
The Green Paper, which we published in the summer to kick off the process, promised that we would level up to a fair amount of funding per pupil. A fair distribution has to be arrived at, however, by considering the relative needs of children, not by arbitrary comparison with a
1114
particular authority or level of funding, or by levelling an authority with low levels of deprivation up to the same level as one with high levels of deprivation. I understand, however, that the effect of the changes to the education funding formula has not been as dramatic as Worcestershire had hoped.
I hope that my remarks at the beginning made it clear that significant funding increases are going into Worcestershire. I believe that we have a funding formula that is far clearer, far simpler and far more transparent. On that basis, it will command the respect of the education world and beyond, and will deliver the sort of stability that we both want.
Miss Kirkbride: As the Minister cut his remarks short, I am grateful to have some time to put our response to those remarks on the record.
While we have great respect for the Minister's intellect, what we heard was simply a load of waffle about the new formula. That simply does not satisfy our constituents, who genuinely feel that the gap has unfairly become wider, when it was wide enough ready, and that it costs pretty much the same to have books and computers and to employ teachers. The Government have not recognised basic cost per pupil in the school funding formula. I understand and support the idea that poorer authorities should have more money to give extra tuition to their pupils who may need it, but I very much resent the idea that just because a child comes from a poorer background, they must, by definition, be less clever and therefore need extra support in schools. That simply is not the case. It certainly was not the case when I was at school, and it is not what I see when I visit schools nowadays. Of course, the formula should represent in some ways deprivation, need, different languages and different ethnicity, but, ultimately, it is not right and proper—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what plans there are to establish clergy on civil service terms. [87986]

  Mr. Bell
  The Archbishops' Council, acting as the Church of England's Central Stipends Authority, bases its recommendations for maternity and paternity provision and long term sick leave for parish clergy upon civil service terms and conditions. Most of the (relatively few) anglican clergy directly employed by the Council or by diocesan offices will also be on civil service terms.

  On the wider question of future options in respect of clergy employment rights I refer the hon .Member to my answers earlier this month.

  Statutory Employment Rights
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners (1) if he will make a statement on the timetable for the Commissioners' response to the DTI's discussion document on Employment Status in relation to Statutory Employment Rights; [87260]

  (2) how many people whose salaries are paid by Church funds are not covered by employment legislation; [87261]

  (3) what the terms of reference of the working group on clergy employment arrangements established by the Archbishops' Council are, and who the members are; [87281]

  (4) if he would make a statement on the Archbishops' Council's announcement of 10th December on clergy employment.rights [87275]

  Mr. Bell
  The Archbishops' Council has responded to the DTI's discussion document on Employment Status in relation to Statutory Employment Rights. A copy of the response has been placed in the Library, along with the terms of reference and membership of the working group, and I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with his own copy.

  From this he will note that there are approximately 9,000 clergy on the central payroll not covered by employment legislation, of which 5,500 have the freehold (and thus have greater employment security than most employees) and 3,500 operate under a bishop's licence (and have less).

CABINET OFFICE

  Contingency Planning
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions his Department has had with the Local Government Association and Emergency Planning Society regarding funding levels for emergency planning. [86599]

  Mr. Alexander
  Government provides funding for emergency planning in local authorities in England and Wales through the civil defence grant. The Government determines that level at which the grant is set. The LGA were involved in discussions earlier this year on how the grant should be allocated to local authorities.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the principal and common medium is for effective and secure communication between emergency services involved in contingency provision, with particular reference to when more than one major geographical area of England is involved. [86600]

  Mr. Alexander
  The PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) is the principal common medium for communication between emergency services throughout the UK. Encrypted telephone instruments are available, for use with the PSTN, to provide secure communication.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what arrangements are in place to ensure that emergency services are able to efficiently and effectively liaise and work together in the event of a major civil disaster; and what common training and instructions exist to ensure that emergency services are able to efficiently work and communicate together in such an event. [86597]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government's "Dealing with Disaster" (3rd Edition) sets out core guidance for all emergency services in achieving a co-ordinated response in the event of a major incident or disaster. The emergency procedures manuals of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association (CACFOA) and the Ambulance Services Association (ASA) all contain guidance on the management of emergencies.

  Because of the lead role of the police in co-ordinating the emergency services response to major incidents, the ACPO guidance sets out, in detail, the relationships and working arrangements between all of the emergency services in responding to a major incident. These arrangements are jointly exercised against different scenarios.

  The emergency services each have an emergency procedures sub-committee, which meets regularly to ensure that they abide by best practice in co-ordinating responses.

  Apart from their own individual service training and exercise schedules, the emergency services regularly run joint exercises both to train for and to validate their joint response arrangements, especially command, control, and communications. The Cabinet Office Emergency Planning College regularly hosts and runs multi-agency

  891W
  major incident management events. For specific scenario exercising and training, such as those around chemical plants, civil nuclear power stations and major transport arrangements (by rail, sea and air), scenario-based multi-agency exercises are regularly carried out (often as a requirement under licensing regulations). Post Exercise Reports are regularly lodged, for wider dissemination and information, at the Emergency Planning College.

  Government Car Service
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many cars manufactured outside the United Kingdom are used by the Government car service, broken down by manufacturer. [87833]

  Mr. Alexander
  Responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the framework document to the Government Car Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to the hon. Member.

WALES

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many departmental Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he has sent this year; [88105]

  (2) how much will be spent on (a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88133]

  Peter Hain
  I anticipate sending some 600 Christmas cards; my ministerial colleague expects to send up to 500. The total cost of printing these cards is expected to be some £484, postage will be payable on many but not all. It is not possible to accurately measure the staff time involved in issuing them.

  I am placing a sample of my card in the Library.

  My Department has spent £15 on hosting a party for "Daffodil Kids"—an organisation which provides outings for seriously ill Welsh children.

  Other than these, there has been no cost to the public purse arising from Christmas entertaining, decorating, or related festive activities this year.

  My Department has no agencies and I have no official residence.

  Cockle Industry (Burry Inlet)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the cockle industry in the Burry Inlet. [86770]
  892W
  Peter Hain
  None. However, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has received representations from hon. Members representing affected areas of the cockle industry in Wales. These include the Burry Inlet. I am aware that the fishery has been closed for many months during the past two years, following an outbreak of Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP) in cockles. I understand that the fishery is open at the moment.

  I understand that the National Assembly for Wales, which has responsibility for fisheries issues, is working with the Food Standards Agency, with the Environment Agency and with Carmarthen and Swansea unitary authorities, to identify the causes of the outbreak, and to agree possible solutions.

  I am also advised that the National Assembly for Wales is in the final stages of negotiations with the European Commission about state aids clearance for a compensation scheme for cockle gatherers who have suffered financial hardship because of the closure of the fishery.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [87704]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The creation of the National Assembly for Wales in July 1999 means that any extant 1998 targets will now lie with the Assembly rather than with my Department.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Statutory Instruments subject to negative procedure made by his Department(a) came into force and (b) were considered by a delegated legislation committee in each of the last three sessions. [88035]

  Peter Hain
  The number of negative resolution statutory instruments made solely by my Department in each of the last three Sessions is as follows:

  Session

  Number

  1999–2000

  1

  2000–01

  2

  2001–02

  1

  These statutory instruments were considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments but no points were raised. My Department is also responsible for drafting Orders in Council relating to Wales, some of which may be subject to negative resolution procedure.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Transsexual People
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for Women what her policy is on including the treatment of transsexuals who are now women within her Department's work. [87277]

  Ms Hewitt
  The treatment of transsexual people under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is already part of the Department of Trade and Industry's responsibilities. The Sex Discrimination Act (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999 amended the 1975 Act to protect people intending to undergo, undergoing, or who have undergone gender reassignment from discrimination at work and in vocational training.

  The part of the Department with responsibility for these Regulations is the Women and Equality Unit. The wider issue of the legal status of transsexual people is the lead responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

DEFENCE

  Accident Inquiries
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 5 December 2002,Official Report, column 926W, on accident inquiries, whether his Department records the results of boards of inquiry; how many boards of inquiry have been held by his Department in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [87936]

  Dr. Moonie
  The results of boards of inquiry are recorded by the authority that convenes the board, but there are no central records.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 25 November 2002, Official Report, column 1W, and 5 December 2002, Official Report, column 926W. The information concerning the number of boards of inquiry in the Ministry of Defence is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many accidents in each of the last five years in which damage was done to MOD property or equipment cost over £100,000 to repair; and if he will make a statement. [87924]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 1W, and 5 December 2002, Official Report, column 926W. Information concerning the number of accidents involving Ministry of Defence property and equipment that have cost over £100,000 to repair is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Alcohol/Drug Misuse
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to reduce(a) alcohol and (b) drug misuse in the armed forces. [86955]
  894W
  Dr. Moonie
  The armed forces employ vigorous education programmes-including pamphlets, films and lectures-at all stages of military training and service to ensure that personnel are aware of the dangers of alcohol and drug misuse. The programmes are regularly reviewed and updated as necessary, and are complemented by administrative and disciplinary measures to deter misuse.

  Defence Procurement
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total expenditure on defence procurement was for the last year in which figures are available: and how much of it was spent in Scotland. [86005]

  Dr. Moonie
  In 2000–01 (the latest year for which published figures are available) procurement expenditure was estimated to be £10,408 million (Table 1.7 UK Defence Statistics, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House, refers). Of this approximately £2,800 million was for the sum of associated costs, intramural research and development spending, overseas equipment expenditure and unrecoverable VAT. The balance, which represents estimated equipment expenditure with United Kingdom industry and commerce, is some £7,600 million. It is not possible to provide a regional breakdown from data available. All of these figures exclude Ministry of Defence non-equipment expenditure on items such as fuel, utilities and some support activities.

  Iraq
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans he has for emergency medical procedures being carried out in the field to troops encountering(a) biological and (b) chemical weapons in Iraq in the event of a war; and if he will make a statement. [86490]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: No decisions have yet been made concerning military action against Iraq.

  Members of the United Kingdom armed forces are afforded a range of countermeasures which would help protect them against the adverse health effects of chemical and biological weapons. These include physical protection, vaccines and antibiotics against biological agents, and nerve agent pre-treatment sets and Combopen injectors against chemical agents.

  Procedures exist for the medical treatment and, if necessary, evacuation of personnel in the event of exposure, or possible exposure, to chemical or biological agents.

  Legal Fees
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has(a) spent on legal fees as a result of cases brought against his Department, (b) paid out in out of court settlements and (c) paid out in court-ordered compensation in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [87923]
  895W
  Dr. Moonie
  The amount spent on legal fees as a result of cases brought against the Ministry of Defence is not recorded separately for the years in question and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The amounts paid in out of court settlements and in court-ordered payments are not recorded separately, but the total amounts paid in compensation and legal costs in both categories for the last five years were:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Amount Paid

  1997–98

  69.22

  1998–99

  75.20

  1999–2000

  75.57

  2000–01

  87.53

  2001–02

  91.26

  Military Bases
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 5 December 2002,Official Report, column 930W, on military bases (legal officers), what welfare and support services there are separate from the chain of command offered to members of the armed forces by his Department; what legal advice is available for members of the armed forces through the range of welfare and support services separate from the chain of command offered by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [87935]

  Dr. Moonie
  Welfare and support services available to service personnel on military bases include chaplains, medical officers, unit welfare officers and agencies such as SSAFA—Forces Help, RELATE and WRVS. A confidential helpline is also available. These services enjoy varying degrees of separateness or independence from the chain of command. All have appropriate rules of confidentiality.

  None of the welfare services provide legal advice per se. However, they may advise an individual to seek independent legal advice where it is felt appropriate. Any service person who is interviewed in connection with a possible offence may make use of the duty solicitor scheme.

  Military Training
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the

  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty and sentenced at all courts for certain offences under the Food Safety Act 1990, England and Wales 1997–2001

  Offence

  Statute

  Year

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  Fine

  Average fine amount (£)

  Immediate custody

  Average custody length (months)

  Rendering food injurious to health

  Food Safety Act 1990, section 7

  1997

  7

  7

  6

  325

  —

  —

  1998

  5

  5

  5

  760

  —

  —

  1999

  5

  5

  5

  1,260

  —

  —

  12000

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  896W
  effectiveness of the enforcement of preventing public access on byelawed land when military training takes place. [87377]

  Dr. Moonie
  Every training area and range affected by military byelaws is subject to a risk assessment in accordance with the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. This risk assessment considers the hazard to the general public if they should enter a byelawed training area or range in error or with intent. Various control measures, which can include signing, flagging or local notification, are then implemented in light of the risk assessment. We are satisfied with the effectiveness of these arrangements.

  Nuclear Weapons Tests
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in the clean-up and environmental restoration of the contamination caused by nuclear weapons testing on Christmas Island since 1992. [87727]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence arranged and took part in a specialist Reconnaissance Survey to Kiritimati during September 1998. This was to identify the types and quantities of waste materials, including an assessment of environmental risks associated with the nuclear test programme in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

  A further visit was made to Kiritimati in August 2000 by MOD and independent specialists to gather further detailed information for the proposed clean-up project.

  The clean-up of the waste material is to be undertaken by contractors appointed and managed by specialists from the MOD. Preparatory work is currently under way with the actual clean-up work on site expected to start during 2003.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Adulterated Food
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many successful prosecutions have been brought since 1997 against persons who have doctored and sold on to retailers adulterated food which is unfit for human consumption; what the(a) average length of imprisonment and (b) fine levied was; and if he will make a statement. [86589]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is given in the table.
  897W

  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty and sentenced at all courts for certain offences under the Food Safety Act 1990, England and Wales 1997–2001

  Offence

  Statute

  Year

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  Fine

  Average fine amount (£)

  Immediate custody

  Average custody length (months)

  Selling food not complying with food safety requirements

  Ibid, section 8

  1997

  170

  111

  106

  1,150

  —

  —

  1998

  144

  112

  99

  1,400

  2

  3.5

  1999

  107

  70

  65

  2,107

  —

  —

  12000

  76

  58

  55

  1,592

  —

  —

  2001

  92

  64

  61

  4,083

  —

  —

  Selling food not of the nature or substance or quality demanded

  Ibid, section 14

  1997

  122

  90

  81

  1,071

  —

  —

  1998

  131

  95

  84

  1,127

  —

  —

  1999

  82

  63

  60

  1,194

  —

  —

  12000

  66

  47

  46

  1,046

  —

  —

  2001

  39

  31

  25

  2,168

  —

  —

  Falsely describing or presenting food

  Ibid, section 15

  1997

  50

  36

  28

  812

  1998

  73

  59

  47

  649

  —

  —

  1999

  59

  50

  44

  756

  —

  —

  12000

  62

  45

  40

  1,035

  —

  —

  2001

  43

  36

  31

  755

  —

  —

  1 Staffordshire Police Force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.

  Transsexual People
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to amend the genuine occupation requirements included in the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999 to remove reasons for refusing transsexuals jobs. [87279]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government is now considering whether, once legal recognition is given to a transsexual person's acquired gender, the Genuine Occupational Qualifications exceptions in the Gender Reassignment Regulations should be modified.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Military Exports
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has in respect of military exports to ensure that end-use certificates specify final user and destination. [87287]

  Nigel Griffiths
  End user undertakings must be consistent with the model format published on the Department of Trade & Industry's Export Control Organisation website, which specifies the end user and destination.

  The website address is http://www.dti.gov.uk/export.control

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress of the UK's contribution to clearing-up nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. [86956]
  898W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has now completed putting in place a fairly complex project and risk management framework to allow us to commit substantial UK funding to assist Russia in particular through our Former Soviet Union Nuclear Legacy Programme. The budget for this programme is some £32 million next year and is expected to run at least this level for the foreseeable future. The programme covers a wide range of nuclear legacy issues including supporting work on weapons plutonium disposition, closed nuclear cities, nuclear safety technical assistance, nuclear security projects, social consequences projects and contributing funding to multilateral projects on decommissioning and the Chernobyl Shelter.

  A number of important projects have already been identified and the means of delivery is now in place to assist in tackling the nuclear legacy in NW Russia an area where we expect up to a third of our funding to be focused over the next few years. UK grant-aid funding for work to provide for the safe management of spent nuclear fuel stocks and for dismantling decommissioned nuclear submarines is therefore ready to flow now. However, before this funding can commence with actual projects on the ground, a suitable legal framework must be agreed with Russia to cover important issues such as third part liability, taxation and access. Hopefully, and after some delay, we are in the final stages of concluding just such a bilateral agreement under which substantive project work will begin. A similar multilateral agreement is also, again hopefully, in its final stages and will provide the mechanism for substantial multilateral assistance. I would emphasise however that the delay in signing the bilateral agreement has not delayed the preparation of projects and a number will be ready to go as soon as the agreement is in place next year.

  The nuclear legacy in NW Russia, as represented by the 100 or so decommissioned nuclear submarines and their associated spent fuel and waste, is such that it is only by active bilateral and multilateral funding that they can be tackled quickly and safely. The UK is

  899W
  playing a leading role in ensuring co-operation and coordination with Russia and between the various donor countries in order that this funding is effective.

  Attending the Baltic Conference of Energy Ministers in Vilnius, Lithuania in November, I committed —700,000 to purchase and install physical protection equipment for two Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers. During this visit I also met with representatives of the UK industry actively involved in planning for the decommissioning of the Ignalina nuclear power station and ameliorating the social consequences of nuclear power plant closure. UK companies have vast experience in these areas and through our social consequences work, we are supporting a number of regeneration and economic projects in Lithuania and Ukraine.

  We will be publishing the first annual report about progress in establishing this programme early next year and further details of specific projects and the programme will be made available on the DTI web site.

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to which bodies her Department makes appointments; how many members there are(a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) businessmen, (ii) businessmen in SMEs and (iii) businessmen in micro-businesses. [87397]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 607W.

  Civil Servants
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many civil servants are employed by his Department; and how much money was spent by her Department in the last 12 months, broken down by local authority area. [87181]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 608W.

  Details of DTI expenditure is not broken down by local authority area.

  Debt Advisory Agencies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the rates of interest charged by debt advisory agencies is included in her review of customer credit legislation. [88043]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A specific investigation of the rates charged by debt advisory agencies will not form a part of the Consumer Credit Review. We are, however, planning to consult on ways to improve the consumer credit licensing regime and to increase protection for consumers in respect of extortionate credit in general.

  All providers of debt management and advisory services are required to be licensed by the Director General of Fair Trading under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In December 2001, the Office of Fair Trading
  900W
  issued guidance to consumer credit licence holders and applicants on how it expects debt management companies to conduct their affairs.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the(a) items and (b) value of the items, exported under the open individual export licences (i) Bolivia, numbers 1 to 9, (ii) Kenya, numbers 1 to 30, (iii) Ghana, numbers 1 to 16, (iv) Angola, numbers 1 to 4, (v) Zambia, numbers 1 to 5, (vi) Yemen, numbers 1 to 3 and (vii) Tanzania, numbers 1 and 2 granted in 2001. [87259]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I refer the right hon. and learned Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 18 March 2002, Official Report, column 53W.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has recently consulted trade bodies and user groups about proposals to change the UK's powers over intellectual property rights in international forums. [88008]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Changes are under consideration in the Convention on the Future of Europe whose working documents are in the public arena. The work of the Convention has been drawn to the attention of industry and user representatives. Formal proposals have not yet emerged, but two relevant recommendations under discussion include a separate article for IP issues within a new EU treaty and extension of qualified majority voting to all areas of commercial policy including intellectual property. Further discussion on these issues will take place in the coming months.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to recommend changes to the division of responsibilities for intellectual property rights between the EU and the UK. [88009]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Changes are under consideration in the Convention on the Future of Europe. Formal proposals have not yet emerged, but two relevant recommendations under discussion include a separate article for IP issues within a new EU treaty and extension of qualified majority voting to all areas of commercial policy including intellectual property. Further discussion on these issues will take place in the coming months.

  Small Business Charter
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the implementation of the Small Business Charter, announced at the Lisbon summit. [88045]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The UK and its European partners are continuing to implement the 10 key enterprise measures in the European Charter for Small Enterprises. The European Commission's second annual implementation report to the last Spring Council noted that progress has
  901W
  undoubtedly been made, but that there was clearly scope for further development. The Commission will produce its third annual implementation report early in 2003. This report will again take account of national reports. The UK's report recounted further progress across all areas in the period up to September 2002. The UK's report has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Abuja Talks
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of the talks in Abuja, Nigeria, organised by the African Development Bank and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation, regarding Africa's agricultural problems, held on 11–12 December. [88078]

  Clare Short
  Talks on the NEPAD Vision for Agricultural Development and Food Security in Africa were held in Abuja from 11–12 December 2002. The talks pledged African governments and regional organisations to working on action plans and programmes on food security and agricultural development, to be implemented especially at a regional level. There was recognition of the opportunities presented by NEPAD and the need to prepare and implement short, medium and long-term bankable projects.

  Afghanistan
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, with regard to health programmes in Afghanistan, what monies(a) her Department has pledged, (b) her Department has delivered, (c) other G8 countries have pledged and (d) other G8 countries have delivered. [61757]

  Clare Short
  In the current financial year, we have disbursed £2 million to the World Health Organisation. This is in addition to funds that have supported NGOs working in the health sector through the QIPs (Quick Impact Projects) scheme. A further £1 million has also been earmarked for the health sector for this year. The manner in which it will be disbursed has yet to be decided. Capacity building for the Ministry of Health has, however, been flagged as a priority.

  It is not possible at this time to give detailed information on the activities of other donors in the health sector. We have supported the Afghanistan Transitional Authority (ATA) in developing a database that will begin to capture such information from 2003. Aid pledged in support of health programmes is delivered in a variety of different manners: bilaterally, multilaterally and through the Afghan Reconstruction Trust fund.

  However, we are aware of specific pledges for the health sector of at least US$100 million from donors, including the World bank, the Asian Development bank, USAID, GTZ, the EU, JICA and the Canadian and Norwegian Governments.
  902W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has had with government ministers in Afghanistan to ensure the safety of Afghan girls attending school. [80562]

  Clare Short
  We are concerned about the reports of attacks on girls' schools in various parts of Afghanistan. Although we are only aware of a limited number of incidents and millions of girls are going back to school, this is a worrying signal of the threat to the equal status of women and girls in Afghanistan. This must be addressed through a comprehensive effort to improve gender equality. During my recent visit to Afghanistan I met the Afghan Affairs Minister, Dr. Habiba Sorabi, and representatives of women's groups. We discussed the factors affecting girls returning to school as well as the wider issue of women's rights.

  African Development
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the US Government about the role of the Millennium Challenge Corporation in Africa; and if she will make a statement. [87872]

  Clare Short
  DFID has had frequent senior level contact with the US Administration on the development of its Millennium Challenge Account since it was announced in March this year. We have encouraged the USA to focus the Account's resources on the poorest countries, many of which are in Africa.

  The US Administration has recently announced the criteria against which it proposes that the Millennium Challenge Corporation should manage the Account. But it is not yet clear how many, or which, African countries can be expected to qualify, or how much of the funding will go to Africa.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the members of the New Partnership for Africa's Development, regarding the role of the US Millennium Challenge Corporation in Africa. [87873]

  Clare Short
  Baroness Amos (the Prime Minister's G8 Special Representative on Africa) recently met G8 colleagues and NEPAD representatives in Accra to discuss implementation of the G8 Africa Action Plan, which includes a section on aid volume and effectiveness. The role of the Millennium Challenge Corporation in Africa was not discussed explicitly in Accra. We continue to work with African governments and other donors on aid effectiveness and are encouraging the US Administration to focus the work of the Millennium Challenge Corporation on low income countries, many of which are in Africa.

  African Union
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which member states of the African Union have adopted the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance. [87215]
  903W
  Clare Short
  The Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance was jointly made by all member states of the African Union at the inaugural Durban meeting of the African Union in June 2002. It affirms commitment to the governance codes and standards which will be used as the basis for peer reviews.

  Good Governance
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the Treasury on the interaction between the new US Government programme to reward emerging markets that meet their criteria of good governance and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's new International Development Finance Facility. [87874]

  Clare Short
  The UK's proposal to establish a new International Financing Facility would allow participating Governments to disburse resources through existing effective bilateral and multilateral mechanisms. If the US Government wishes, this could include the US Millennium Challenge Account. The Government's view is that an increased share of development assistance should go to the countries in which aid is used most effectively, i.e. countries with high levels of poverty and a good policy environment, and be delivered through development agencies which share a commitment to the improved management of aid. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I and our respective Departments are working closely together on this proposal.

  Health Care and Education
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which countries her Department has financed(a) health care and (b) education projects that have involved an element of privatisation. [87428]

  Clare Short
  My Department is focused on improving health and education services for the poor and favours policies that achieve this objective. We do, however, recognise the importance of the private sector in delivering services to the poor. For example, 50–80 per cent. of all health care expenditures in developing countries are through the private sector. In parallel to our work to strengthen public sector health systems, DFID support to private sector providers seeks to increase access to high quality health services for the poor. Examples of interventions include support to social marketing of condoms and contraceptives and bed nets to prevent malaria.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries have benefited from the investment by the Department of International Development on HIV/AIDS related bilateral work since last year; and by how much. [88057]

  Clare Short
  The information requested is set out as follows. Please note these figures do not include expenditure on regional programmes or non region specific work on programmes and research based in the UK.
  904W

  HIV/AIDS related expenditure by country

  £000

  Afghanistan

  351

  Angola

  0

  Bangladesh

  17,886

  Belarus, Republic of

  8

  Bolivia

  2,294

  Brazil

  10

  Burkina Faso

  0

  Burma

  57

  Cameroon

  0

  Cambodia

  906

  China

  2,426

  Cuba

  49

  Ecuador

  83

  Ethiopia

  92

  Ghana

  129

  Guyana

  84

  Haiti

  72

  Honduras

  123

  India

  5,894

  Iran

  334

  Kazakhstan, Republic of

  13

  Kenya

  8,011

  Laos

  0

  Lesotho

  74

  Macedonia

  0

  Malawi

  15,673

  Mali

  80

  Mexico

  42

  Moldova, Republic of

  12

  Mongolia

  24

  Montserrat

  424

  Mozambique

  7,079

  Namibia

  166

  Nepal

  1,886

  Nicaragua

  90

  Nigeria

  2,015

  Pakistan

  2,472

  Peru

  139

  Russian Federation

  784

  Rwanda

  1,072

  Senegal

  147

  Serbia and Montenegro

  807

  Sierra Leone

  408

  Somali Democratic Rep

  6

  South Africa, Republic of

  5,570

  Sri Lanka

  82

  Sudan

  452

  Swaziland

  54

  Tanzania

  46,944

  Togo

  47

  Uganda

  2,103

  Ukraine

  52

  Vietnam

  76

  West Bank and Gaza

  575

  Yugoslavia

  0

  Zambia

  4,005

  Zimbabwe

  8,778

  Information Communication Technology
  Mr. Bercow
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will make a statement on the progress of the work of the United Nations Development Programme in information and communications technology. [64978]

  Clare Short
  UNDP has been active in the field of information communication technology (ICT) since 1993 in close to 90 countries through a combination of global, regional and national programmes. In the initial
  905W
  phases of its work, UNDP's focus was largely on creating awareness, building capacity, and supporting ICT for development at the community and national level. The focus has now widened following discussions with UNDP's Executive Board in June 2001. UNDP now includes assisting countries with ICT for development policies, the formulation and implementation of prioritised national e-development strategies. Other programme initiatives which signify further progress are that of ICT to enhance democratic governance (e-governance), economic and social development (for example, micro finance, e-business, ICT to support local development) at local and national levels.

  Kenya
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of levels of food security in north-west Kenya; and if she will make a statement. [88079]

  Clare Short
  Following several years of poor rains and drought, the food security situation in north-west Kenya remains precarious. But heavy rainfall is now bringing both immediate respite and better prospects for significant improvements in the availability of water, pasture and browse. For the first time in two years, recovery is now a real possibility. DFID continues to monitor the situation in close collaboration with the Government of Kenya, the UN, NGO's and other donors.

  Since 1999, DFID has spent over £18 million on drought-related assistance to Kenya. Most of this has been targeted on the north of the country.

  New Partnership for Africa's Development
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made on the African Peer Review Mechanism within NEPAD on(a) economic values, (b) governance values and (c) corporate values. [87213]

  Clare Short
  At the Abuja meeting of the NEPAD Implementation Committee, 13 countries signed up for peer review. The full details of the process will be settled in January, but we understand that a group of eminent persons will oversee reviews carried out by technical experts. The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa will be involved in the technical reviews of economic governance, and has had a series of useful exchanges on the process of peer review with the OECD DAC.

  Poverty Reduction
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance her Department is providing in 2002–03 to(a) Bolivia, (b) Pakistan and (c) India in support of policy reforms and poverty reduction measures. [67484]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:

  Bolivia

  We have allocated some £10 million for our total bilateral development assistance programme for 2002–03 in Bolivia. Additionally, Bolivia will benefit
  906W
  from DFID funds contributed to multilateral organisations such as the World bank and IADB, through grants to civil society organisations. The EC is providing £80.7 million for 2002–06, of which DFID's share is around 19 per cent.

  We have now moved away from supporting discrete bilateral projects to support for government-led policy reforms within the context of the Bolivian poverty reduction strategy, concentrating on adding value to the international community's support to Bolivia's development effort. We are focusing our support in two areas—the integration of economic and social policy, recognising the key role of the informal economy for poor people's livelihoods, and enhancing social inclusion and participation in political processes within a more accountable and transparent institutional framework.

  India

  DFID has allocated £230 million of development assistance to India in financial year 2002–03. The EC is providing £17.9 million in 2002–03, of which DFID's share is around 19 per cent.

  Our development programme in India, where on in three of the world's poor live, is aimed at helping Government, at both national and state level, to deliver pro-poor policies and services. We are working closely with four partner states committed to poverty reduction, including on their programmes of fiscal and public service reform.

  We are also working on increasing access to basic health, education, and water and sanitation services for the poor, on promoting better management of the natural and physical environment, and on promoting greater empowerment of the poor, especially women and the marginalised.

  Pakistan

  DFID has allocated £60 million of development assistance to Pakistan in financial year 2002–03, of which £40 million is financial aid. £105.7 million is being provided by the EC for 2002£06, again with DFID's share being around 19 per cent.

  We are committed to supporting Pakistan's economic and social development for the long haul. The ultimate aim is the reduction of poverty as set out in the Government of Pakistan's interim poverty reduction strategy paper.

  DFID's bilateral programme is focused on three objectives: creating the economic conditions for poverty reduction; improving health outcomes for poor people and improving education outcomes for poor people.

  River Congo
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the answer of 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 62W, on the River Congo, what preventive measures are being taken to reduce the impact of a flooding of the river. [88148]

  Clare Short
  DFID funds a number of humanitarian agencies in DRC that specialise in interventions to minimise the effects of man made and natural disasters. Specifically, the United Nations Office for the
  907W
  Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs operates an emergency response programme to which DFID has contributed £500,000. The International Committee of the Red Cross is also mandated to respond to provide humanitarian assistance, should urgent needs arise. DFID is in the process of finalising a contribution of £2.5 million to the ICRC for DRC. We have also provided support to an OXFAM water and sanitation programme in Kinshasa. Effective intervention in this sector will be critical if significant flooding does occur.

  South Africa
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department is giving in 2002–03 to provide safe water for the people of South Africa; and if she will make a statement. [87869]

  Clare Short
  My Department anticipates spending £1.36 million on water and sanitation in South Africa in 2002–03. A new £11.54 million DFID support programme started in September 2002. The programme will run for five years, with an anticipated spend in 2003–04 of £2.9 million.

  In addition, we contribute around £2.7 million per year to EU water and sanitation programmes in South Africa.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the US Aid Padco Report on water privatisation in South Africa. [87870]

  Clare Short
  I have made no assessment of the report. The report was commissioned by the Municipal Infrastructure Investment Unit, a body set up by, and accountable to, the South African Department of Provincial and Local Government, using funding from USAID. It is part of a broad series of small research projects to help inform the Government of South Africa's policy thinking around PPPs.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had on water privatisation in South Africa with(a) the South African Municipal Workers Union and (b) non-governmental organisations working in the country. [87871]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not engaged in bilateral discussions on the subject of water privatisation with either the South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) or NGOs. However, SAMWU and the NGO community are represented on both the Water Sector Leadership Group (WSLG) and the Steering Committee for the SA Government's Masibambane water and sanitation programme. My Department is also represented on both committees. The subject of water privatisation has on occasions been discussed at both the Masibambane meetings and WSLG.

  Southern Africa
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what efforts there have been to overcome delays to food imports in Zambia caused by the issuing of import licences. [88480]
  908W
  Clare Short
  DFID became aware of the delay in the issuing of import licences for food imports in Zambia in mid November. The WFP brought this up at a meeting with the Deputy Minister of Finance at the end of November and he agreed to facilitate the prompt issue of import licences if this remained a problem. My officials have encouraged WFP to pursue this issue.

  Import licences are currently being issued within a week of request, which is sufficient to avoid delays to the WFP food pipeline.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made by the World Food Programme in completing the contract for the transportation of food aid to southern Africa. [88482]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Programme is doing an excellent job in trying to meet the needs of the most vulnerable people in the southern Africa region. Food Aid received in Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe since July 2002 amounts to 344,830MT. WFP, with help from DFID, is actively trying to avoid any break in the food pipeline this month. WFP's key constraint in maintaining and building up the pipeline for the height of the humanitarian crisis in January and February is getting the funding it needs from donors. We are continuing to press other donors to do more, and the UK remains the second largest bilateral donor to the crisis.

  Sustainable Crops (Africa)
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance the UK is giving the underdeveloped countries of Africa to produce sustainable crops. [87766]

  Clare Short
  My Department works with developing countries to ensure that their poverty reduction strategies reflect the need to manage environmental resources, including agricultural production, sustainably. Sustainability must be seen in its widest context. It is not just a matter of the ecology of agricultural systems themselves, but the impact of these systems on the lives and opportunities of others, particularly poor consumers and producers. Sustainability in one system cannot be at the expense of sustainability in others.

  My Department also supports a significant number of programmes and projects throughout the developing world that seek to provide direct benefits to poor people whose livelihoods are dependent on agriculture. Many of these include the provision of support to sustainable agriculture, either through training and knowledge/technology transfer, institutional capacity building and reform (e.g. strengthening co-operatives and other forms of producer groups and improving agricultural service delivery) or the funding of research, both national and international.

  This year, DFID expects to spend about £35 million on natural resources research. While sustainability is a cornerstone for all our research programmes, a significant proportion of the programme is focused on developing and transferring technologies specifically for sustainable agriculture.
  909W
  Copies of the DFID issues paper "Better Livelihoods for Poor People: The Role of Agriculture and the Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy" publication are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Uganda
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the plans for privatisation of water in towns in Uganda; and if she will make a statement. [87876]

  Clare Short
  The central theme of the urban reform process in Uganda is private sector management of existing utilities, as opposed to privatisation. A recent review by the World bank revealed that this shift has realised efficiency gains, with the National Water and Sanitation Corporation now showing an operating profit. DFID has a £5 million programme of support to the water and sanitation sector in Uganda, focused on financing the rural sector, but through which we also engage in policy dialogue on urban reform. In addition, we provide technical assistance to the Utility Reform Unit, which is leading the urban water reform programme. We have recently commissioned a review of lessons learned from private sector participation in the water sector, with the view to considering further support for assessing the social impact of new policies.

  Urban Sewage Projects
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department is giving to urban sewage projects in(a) Africa, (b) Asia and (c) Latin America in 2002–03. [87875]

  Clare Short
  The latest period for which details of expenditure are available is 2001–02. Allocation is defined by current DAC categories for the water sector, which do not differentiate between water supply and sanitation. My Department's bilateral expenditure on urban water supply and sanitation in the period 2001–02 was as follows:

  £

  Africa

  8 million

  Asia

  12.7 million

  Central and South America

  100,000

  Uzbekistan
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total amount of UK bilateral aid to Uzbekistan was in the last year for which figures are available. [87652]

  Clare Short
  In 2001–02, the last year for which figures are available, the total amount of UK bilateral aid to Uzbekistan was £362,000.

  Funding is also provided via the EC, of which DFID's share is around 19 per cent. In 2000, our contribution to Uzbekistan was approximately £1.3 million.

  Working Group on Access to Medicines
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research and development into medicines and vaccines her Department's Working Group on Access to Medicines has undertaken since it was established. [88022]

  Clare Short
  The High Level Working Group on Access to Medicines' task, among others, was to consider ways to increase research and development (R&D) for diseases that affect poor people in the developing world. The group has now reported to the Prime Minister and put forward options for partnerships and policies that can help resolve market failure and re-shape incentives for industry, and to ensure investment by the pharmaceutical industry on R&D for diseases of poor people is monitored. One positive advance has been the Government's announcement, in April, to extend tax relief to companies involved in R&D for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria relevant to the developing world.

  The group recognised that investment in R&D for childhood diseases and six additional tropical diseases remains critically short. My Department currently invests in a number of R&D partnerships in this area and will continue to look at policy options that can further increase R&D for neglected diseases. The Government are taking forward a High Level Working Group recommendation to look at the potential that modified Orphaned Drug legislation might have to stimulate R&D investments for these neglected diseases.

  Yemen
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made on the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper of the Yemen. [87548]

  Clare Short
  The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper was submitted by the Government of Yemen to the Boards of the World bank and the IMF at the end of July, and subsequently approved by both.

  The World bank hosted a Consultative Group meeting in Paris during October, which was attended by representatives from the Government and from donor agencies operating in Yemen. At this meeting, both the Government and the donor community affirmed their commitment to work together in implementing the Poverty Reduction Strategy over the course of the next three years.

  Detailed discussions are now under way in Sana'a about how to implement that commitment and monitor progress.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department is doing to work with the Government of Yemen(a) on their basic education programme and (b) reproductive health. [87549]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not currently have a programme of work with the Government of Yemen in either the basic education or reproductive ealth sectors. Through the Small Grants Scheme
  911W
  administered by the British Embassy, we are supporting some small-scale activities which are being implemented by non-governmental organisations at a local level.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department will give to the Yemen in 2002–03 and if this will increase within the Framework of the Resource Allocation Round. [87550]

  Clare Short
  My Department expects to provide funding worth around £2.28 million to Yemen in 2002–03. The outcome of the Resource Allocation Round for future years will be known early in 2003.

  Zimbabwe
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken to encourage school attendance in Zimbabwe. [88478]

  Clare Short
  There are programmes in Zimbabwe which aim to provide all primary school children with supplementary food. But there is a lack of funds to implement these programmes fully. Direct bilateral programmes, including DFID's supplementary feeding programme, are now providing over one million school children with a supplementary meal a day. Monitoring indicates that where feeding is being conducted, this has been successful in reducing drop-out rates.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the answer of 10 July,Official Report, columns 957–8W, on HIV/AIDS, how money has been (a) allocated and (b) spent for HIV/AIDS-related programmes, broken down by country. [72433]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) 23 July 2002,Official Report, columns 894–5W.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the impact which the decision of the Zimbabwean Government to ban the milling of GM maize has had on food relief efforts in the country. [88477]

  Clare Short
  Last week, the Government of Zimbabwe rescinded its decision to ban the importation of GM maize for milling in-country. Milling of GM food already in the country has resumed, agreement has been reached on the import of 17,500MT of GM grain which will also be milled in country. The National Food mill at Bulawayo has continued to mill, and the Gweru plant will also be brought on stream, bringing the authorised milling capacity in Zimbabwe to about 16,000MT/month .

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what impact the break in food aid in the first two weeks of December has had in(a) Zimbabwe and (b) Zambia. [88479]

  Clare Short
  It is now unlikely that there will be breaks in the food pipelines to either country during December, although the situation remains fragile. For Zimbabwe, against a target distribution of 50,000MT of maize for 4.5 million beneficiaries in 44 districts, the realistic distribution figure may be as low as 20,000MT.912W
  In order to allow for this shortage, WFP has introduced two ration scales: (i) 5Kg of maize will be distributed to families in districts that have been receiving food aid on a regular basis; and (ii) 10Kg of maize will be distributed to families in areas that have not received food aid thus far. All families will receive 1Kg of CSB and 1Kg of pulses. For Zambia, DFID has helped strengthen the WFP pipeline with a unique agreement between the Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ) and WFP. This involves distributing 23,000MT of GRZ purchased maize through the WFP pipeline with transportation costs being met by DFID. This will ensure a full maize pipeline for Zambia during December.

SCOTLAND

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the civil defence grant allocations by local authority, in(a) cash and (b) real terms; and if she will make a statement on civil defence in Scotland. [87035]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Civil Defence grant to Scottish local authorities ceased with the signing of the Civil Defence (Grant) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 in March 2001. Financial support for local authorities for the emergency planning work which they carry out continues to be provided at the request of local authorities through the normal GAE mechanism.

  In Scotland there are well-established procedures for dealing with a wide range of civil emergencies. Following the events of 11 September a range of additional measures have been put in place. These provide significant funding for new equipment for the emergency services; new procedures for dealing with suspect packages; and guidance on dealing with the threat from, and consequences of, chemical and biological incidents. In addition my Department and Scottish Executive colleagues are fully involved in the work being led by the Cabinet Office in resilience planning across the UK.

  Expenditure Limit
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to her Written Ministerial Statement of 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 29WS, whether the Scotland Office is running a budget surplus in the current financial year. [85194]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I expect Scotland Office expenditure to be contained within the Department Expenditure Limit in the current financial year.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to her Written Ministerial Statement of 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 29WS, what factors account for the increase in the Scotland Departmental Expenditure Limit arising from the take-up of the End Year Flexibility. [85195]
  913W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The increase in the Scotland Departmental Expenditure Limit is required to meet planned expenditure by the Scottish Executive and the Boundary Commission for Scotland, and to enable the Scotland Office to move towards its full staffing level.

  Industrial and Provident Society Law
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive about amending industrial and provident society law; and if she will make a statement. [87888]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Scotland Office officials have discussed with executive officials the implications of the report by the Strategy Unit, "Private Action, Public Benefit", on charities and the wider not for profit sector. This report contains recommendations on bringing Industrial and Provident Society law up to date.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total expenditure of(a) her Department and (b) its agencies was on official travel in 2001–02. [84794]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [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 were 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.

  Total expenditure on travel by my Department in 2001–02 was £305,000.

  Organic Food
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the target for increasing the market share of UK-produced organic foods over organic imports in the DEFRA Organic Action Plan will apply in Scotland. [87915]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Responsibility for agriculture in Scotland is devolved. While some of the elements of the DEFRA plan such as the compendium of standards will apply on a UK basis, the targets will not apply to Scotland. Scottish Executive Ministers have appointed an Organic Stakeholder Group to deliver an action plan with recommendations for future executive support for the organic sector in Scotland. The Group will consider a wide range of issues including future executive support for organic conversion, development of the organic food chain, research priorities and organic standards and certification. The group is due to report in January 2003.

  Rail Links
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the proposed plans to redevelop a rail link between Edinburgh and the Scottish borders. [87761]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Following approval in July of an Order under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Parliament now has legislative competence for the promotion and construction of railways wholly within Scotland. I understand that the Scottish Executive has provided £2 million to the promoter, the Waverley Railway Partnership, to help towards the costs of securing the necessary parliamentary powers for reinstating a railway connection between Edinburgh and the central Borders.

  Sustainability Strategy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the sustainability strategy is for her Department; and if she will make a statement on how it has changed since the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. [83505]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has limited executive responsibilities, but it is committed to the Government's sustainability development strategy in carrying out its functions.

  Following devolution, most aspects of sustainable development in Scotland are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. In April this year, the Executive published "Meeting the Needs—Priorities, Actions and Targets for Sustainable Development in Scotland". This identified resource use, energy and travel as the main priorities for action and set out indicators and targets for monitoring progress.

  The outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and first views on follow up, will be reflected in the annual report on UK progress on sustainable development for 2002.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Canoeing
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase access to water for canoeing; and if he will make a statement. [87886]

  Angela Smith
  The Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure has a water recreation remit which allows it to provide and improve facilities for promoting the recreational or navigational use of waterways. The Department has funded the installation of public canoe steps and associated facilities on a number of Northern Ireland rivers under this programme. The Department is also administering a European-funded Water Recreation Development Programme 2001–04 for projects designed to develop the inland waterway network and improve water recreation facilities available to both local and tourist users.
  915W
  In December this year the Countryside Access and Activities Network for Northern Ireland (CAAN) published a Report on "Canoeing in Northern Ireland—Strategic Review" which sets out a recommended way forward for the future development of canoeing.

  Foetal Health
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what obligations there are on employers to provide protection for an unborn child at the mother's workplace. [88070]

  Mr. Pearson
  Obligations on employers to provide protection for an unborn child at the mother's work place are provided through the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. These regulations require employers to carry out risk assessments to identify hazards and take appropriate action to protect the health and safety of the expectant mother and her unborn child.

  Local Government
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will meet the National Association of Local Councillors (Northern Ireland Region) to discuss(a) members' allowances, (b) the future of local government and (c) other matters of mutual interest. [87320]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have no immediate plans to meet the National Association of Councillors (Northern Ireland Region). Local Government issues are the responsibility of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Angela Smith), who has responsibility for the Department of the Environment. I understand she plans to meet members of the Association on a regular basis, as was the practice of the former Minister of the Environment (Dermot Nesbitt). Preparations for a meeting early in the new year are currently underway.

  Sickness (Teachers)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are in place to reduce the number of teacher sickness absences in Northern Ireland. [88077]

  Jane Kennedy
  The monitoring of sick absences is the responsibility of teachers' employers.

  Information on teacher absences in the controlled and maintained sectors is routinely made available by the Department to each Education and Library Board and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools.

  The Department of Education and the employing authorities are very much aware of the pressures and challenges facing teachers and are working closely with teacher representatives to seek ways of maintaining and improving the health of teachers. The Teachers' Health and Well-being Survey Report has just been published and a strategy group has been established to take forward its recommendations.

  The Department and employers will also be looking very carefully at the recommendations in the Northern Ireland Audit Office Report on The Management of
  916W
  Substitution Cover for Teachers, about identifying local patterns and trends so that reasonable targets for reducing sick absences can be set and monitored.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what efforts he is making to ensure that schools in Northern Ireland give priority to offering supply teaching vacancies to young unemployed qualified teachers. [88076]

  Jane Kennedy
  The recruitment of substitute teachers is the responsibility of teachers' employers. Employers are encouraged to give preference to newly qualified teachers and experienced non-retired teachers who are seeking employment. Retired teachers should only be re-employed to provide short-term cover where newly qualified teachers or experienced non-retired teachers unavailable. Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment's (DETI) statistics for February 2002 (the latest month for which statistics are available) indicate there were only three teachers under 25 years of age registered as unemployed for more than six months.

  Capping of the levels of the central reimbursement of the costs of substitute cover also provides an incentive for schools to employ newly qualified teachers as substitutes.

  Youth Services
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much is being spent in 2002–03 on youth service provision in(a) North Belfast, (b) East Belfast, (c) South Belfast and (d) West Belfast; and how many people are employed as (i) full-time staff and (ii) part-time staff in each area. [87406]

  Jane Kennedy
  It has not been possible to divide Belfast into areas corresponding to parliamentary constituencies. However, for Education and Library Board controlled and voluntary youth projects an attempt has been made to define the boundaries that are currently considered North, South, East and West within the Belfast Youth Service. The position in respect of 2002–03 for youth projects in these areas is as follows:

  Staffing

  Area

  Spending (approx) (£000)

  Full-time

  Part-time

  (a) North

  908

  20

  40

  (b) East

  413

  9

  49

  (c) South

  482

  11

  64

  (d) West

  812

  24

  63

  Total

  2,615

  64

  216

  As Education and Library Board Support and other services such as outdoor education centres, support to uniform organisations, training, Duke of Edinburgh and headquarter staffing are city wide or city centre initiatives it has not been possible to breakdown the remaining spending of around £1 million or the remaining staffing provision.

  The Belfast Regeneration Office of the Department for Social Development will have a total spend, during 2002–03, of £371,833 on youth service provision in North, South, East and West Belfast and will employ

  917W
  seven full time and one part time staff during this period. Please see details of the breakdown of these figures in the following table.

  Area/project name

  Funding 2002–03 (£)

  Number of employees

  North Belfast

  Ballysillan Elim Church

  1,456.00

  0

  Ardoyne Youth Providers' Forum

  17,154.00

  0

  Artillery Youth Centre

  23,143.00

  0

  Manor Street/Cliftonville Community Group

  9,239.00

  0

  Total

  50,992.00

  0

TREASURY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it Government policy not to(a) employ and (b) award contracts to a financial institution which uses offshore arrangements intended to avoid employers' national insurance liabilities, or has done so in the last three years. [R] [87712]

  Mr. Boateng
  Individual Government Departments are responsible for taking decisions on the goods and services they acquire—and from whom they acquire them—taking account of the Government's procurement policy of seeking value for money for the taxpayer. Under Regulation 14 (1)(f) and (g) of the Public Works, Services and Supply Contracts Regulations (SIs: 1991/2680, 1993/3228 and 1995/201 respectively), Departments may reject any potential supplier who has not fulfilled obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions or of taxes under the law of the UK and, where relevant, of another member state. This provision is not time limited.

  Annual Convergence Programme
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to submit an updated, annual Convergence Programme, as required by the Stability and Growth Pact. [88638]

  Ruth Kelly
  As required under the Stability and Growth Pact, an updated, annual Convergence Programme has today been submitted to the European Commission. Copies of the Programme are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Community Care Grant and Budgeting Loan
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will increase the amount of money available to(a) the Community Care Grant and (b) the Budgeting Loan budget. [85289]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The discretionary Social Fund provides people on low incomes with grants and loans to help them manage a wide range of unexpected or occasional costs, including the purchase of beds and cookers, depending on their individual circumstances.
  918W
  On 27 November, we announced that from April 2003, £90 million will be added to the discretionary Fund over the three years to 2005–06. This extra investment will enhance the fund's ability to help those on low incomes manage their finances.

  We have already introduced a number of important changes to the Social Fund. We have simplified the budgeting loan scheme so that all applicants who satisfy the qualifying conditions, and have no outstanding Social Fund debt, will be offered a loan. We have also extended the qualifying conditions for community care grants to help people setting up home in the community who have been without a settled way of life.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the Special ECOFIN Council held on 11 December 2002; and what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [87768]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended the special ECOFIN meeting on 11 December 2002.

  There was a discussion of draft conclusions on the tax package, based on the proposals outlined by the Presidency at the 3 December 2002 ECOFIN meeting.

  The Presidency confirmed that further discussion on this and energy taxation would be scheduled for the ECOFIN meeting on 21 January 2003. The Commission undertook to put in place appropriate measures to ensure that the French and Italian derogations, allowing reduced duty rates for hauliers, would be extended until then. No votes were taken at this meeting.

  Economic Activity
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the 50 local authority areas with(a) the lowest and (b) the highest rates of economic inactivity. [88215]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 19 December 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on economic inactivity rates. (88215)
  The attached table lists (a) the 50 local authority areas with the lowest economic inactivity rates and (b) the 50 local authority areas with the highest economic inactivity rates, for the twelve month period ending August 2002. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  Economic inactivity rates1 by local authority area; United Kingdom—Average of September 2001 to August 2002

  Inactivity rate (per cent.)

  50 local authority areas with the lowest inactivity rates

  Test Valley

  9.6

  Welwyn Hatfield

  10.0

  Salisbury

  10.1

  Tandridge

  10.5

  Eastleigh

  10.6

  Cherwell

  11.1

  Blaby

  11.1

  Runnymede

  11.2

  919W

  Economic inactivity rates1 by local authority area; United Kingdom—Average of September 2001 to August 2002

  Inactivity rate (per cent.)

  Milton Keynes

  11.2

  West Oxfordshire

  11.6

  Crawley

  12.2

  Rushmoor

  12.5

  Spelthorne

  12.5

  Chichester

  12.6

  South Somerset

  12.7

  Broadland

  12.8

  Tewkesbury

  12.9

  Harrogate

  12.9

  South Staffordshire

  13.0

  Hambleton

  13.2

  Swindon

  13.2

  East Hertfordshire

  13.3

  South Kesteven

  13.3

  East Staffordshire

  13.3

  Reigate and Banstead

  13.4

  Vale of White Horse

  13.4

  Kingston upon Thames

  13.5

  East Hampshire

  13.5

  Winchester

  13.5

  South Derbyshire

  13.6

  Dacorum

  13.6

  North West Leicestershire

  13.7

  South Gloucestershire

  13.8

  Erewash

  13.9

  Northampton

  13.9

  Dudley

  14.0

  Bracknell Forest

  14.0

  Mid Sussex

  14.0

  South Cambridgeshire

  14.1

  Perth and Kinross

  14.1

  Fareham

  14.1

  Taunton Deane

  14.3

  West Berkshire

  14.3

  Woking

  14.3

  North Kesteven

  14.4

  Aylesbury Vale

  14.4

  Sutton

  14.4

  Wyre Forest

  14.5

  Rugby

  14.5

  Chelmsford

  14.5

  50 local authority areas with the highest inactivity rates

  Newham

  39.6

  Ceredigion

  38.8

  Tower Hamlets

  38.5

  Hackney

  35.7

  Liverpool

  35.0

  Torfaen

  33.8

  Neath Port Talbot

  33.6

  Hartlepool

  33.3

  Glasgow City

  32.9

  Manchester

  32.8

  Wear Valley

  32.5

  Westminster

  32.4

  Anglesey Isle of

  31.6

  Barrow-in-Furness

  30.7

  Pembrokeshire

  30.3

  Haringey

  30.2

  Easington

  30.1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  30.1

  Knowsley

  30.1

  Nottingham

  29.9

  Blaenau Gwent

  29.6

  Islington

  29.6

  Leicester

  29.4

  Barnsley

  29.3

  Clackmannanshire

  29.3

  Carmarthenshire

  29.2

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  29.2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  29.1

  920W

  Economic inactivity rates1 by local authority area; United Kingdom—Average of September 2001 to August 2002

  Inactivity rate (per cent.)

  Greenwich

  28.9

  Durham

  28.7

  Caerphilly

  28.5

  Northern Ireland

  28.3

  Southwark

  28.2

  Kingston upon Hull City of

  28.2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  28.1

  Merthyr Tydfil

  28.0

  Stockton-on-Tees

  27.9

  Ashfield

  27.9

  Cardiff

  27.7

  Birmingham

  27.7

  Sunderland

  27.7

  Inverclyde

  27.6

  Darlington

  27.6

  Burnley

  27.4

  Barking and Dagenham

  27.3

  Stoke-on-Trent

  27.3

  Wrexham

  27.1

  Scarborough

  27.0

  Wansbeck

  27.0

  Great Yarmouth

  26.9

  1 Total economically inactive as a percentage of the resident population of working age.

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates have not yet been adjusted to take account of the recent 2001 Census results.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 263W on insurance premium tax, what material he has published reviewing insurance premium tax; and if he will publish an interim report. [87792]

  Ruth Kelly
  We have not published any material reviewing insurance premium tax and there are no current plans to do so.

  North Sea Oil Profits
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the revenue from corporation tax on North Sea oil profits was in each year since 1997. [86666]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Receipts from North Sea corporation tax are given in Statistics Table 11.11 on Inland Revenue's website, http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax/ct_t11_1.htm

  Pension Contribution Statistics
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will give a breakdown of line H of the table on page 31 of the ONS Review of Pension Contribution Statistics published on 10 October between transfers within the assured sector, transfers between the self-administered and assured sector and transfers from public sector schemes; [81798]

  (2) if he will estimate the average contribution per head of those who (a) have made contributions and (b) have had contributions made on their behalf in each of the last five years, broken down by those who

  921W
  have had the contributions made to (i) individual and personal pensions, (ii) self-administered occupational pension schemes and (iii) insurance-managed occupational pension schemes; and if he will make a statement; [81799]

  (3) if he will estimate the number of individuals who have made contributions or who have had contributions made on their behalf in each of the last five years, broken down by those who have had the contributions made to (a) individual and personal pensions, (b) self-administered occupational pension schemes and (c) insurance-managed occupational pension schemes; [81800]

  (4) how much has been contributed to funded pension schemes by individuals and employers in each of the last five years, broken down by individual and personal pensions, (b) self-administered occupational pension schemes and (c) insurance-managed occupational pension schemes. [81801]

  (5) whether the checks referred to in paragraph 2 on page 30 of the ONS Review of Pension Contribution Statistics published on 10 October had been carried out between the time the Statistical Working Group met in June and the Review was published in October; what the result was of those checks; and whether they were taken into account in providing the answer to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), 29 October 2002, Official Report, column 689W; [81796]

  (6) what deduction was made to the figure for gross contributions to allow for transfers of pension scheme assets that pass between the self-administered and insurance-managed sectors but remain within the same pension fund, when preparing the table on pages 31 and 32 of the ONS Review of Pension Contribution Statistics published on 10 October. [81797]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts dated 19 December 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on pension contribution statistics. (81796, 81797, 81798, 81799, and 81801).
  Question 112—To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will give a breakdown of line H of the table on page 31 of the ONS Review of Pension Contribution Statistics published 10th October between transfers within the assured sector, transfers between self-administered and the assured sector and transfers from public sector schemes.
  Annex B table 1 provides a framework for reconciling the gross inquiry data, provided by self-administered pension funds and insurance companies, with the total used by the Inland Revenue for contributions attracting tax relief.
  Where data are drawn from our inquiries to pension funds and insurance companies, the 2001 figures are based on smaller quarterly samples and are provisional. They are usually subject to revision when the annual benchmark data become available.
  Line H contains adjustments to exclude transfers from self-administered pension funds (d); transfers within the assured sector (c); and transfers from public sector schemes (b). In addition an adjustment is made to total pension contributions,
  922W
  received by UK insurance companies, to remove premiums paid to UK companies by individuals overseas (a). The adjustments, which are included in line H, are shown below:

  Year

  Adjustment for UK only business a (£bn)

  Adjustments for notionally and unfounded schemes b (£bn)

  Surrenders/refunds under group/company sponsored schemes c (£bn)

  Net transfers from (+) to (-) self-administered pension funds d (£bn)

  1997

  0.3

  0.2

  7.5

  0.4

  1998

  0.3

  0.2

  11.1

  0.9

  1999

  0.3

  0.2

  14.8

  -0.7

  2000

  0.3

  0.2

  14.3

  -2.3

  2001(p)

  0.3

  0.2

  16.4

  3.1

  (p) Data for 2001 are provisional.

  The row totals may be different from the total published in Annex B, due to rounding effects.
  Question 114—To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will estimate the number of individuals who have made contributions or who have had contributions made on their behalf in each of the last five years, broken down by those who have had the contribution made to (a) individual personal pensions, (b) self-administered occupational pension schemes and (c) insurance managed occupational pension schemes.
  The Family Resources Survey estimates of the number of individuals contributing to either personal or occupational pensions in each of the five years are given below.
  The estimates for occupational pensions can not be broken down into contributors to self-administered and insurance-managed schemes.

  Numbers of working age individuals building up rights to a private, occupational and personal pension (millions)

  Private pension

  Occupational pension

  Personal pension

  FRS

  1996–97

  15.2

  10.2

  5.8

  1997–98

  15.0

  10.3

  5.6

  1998–99

  15.2

  10.6

  5.6

  1999–2000*

  14.5

  10.6

  4.2

  2000–01*

  14.5

  10.9

  4.0

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey GB

  Rounding:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 100,000

  Definitions:

  Working age is defined as 16-State Pension Age

  Private pensions:

  Numbers contributing to a private pension are all those contributing to either occupational and/or personal pension

  *Data from 1999/00 are not comparable with earlier data.

  Question 115—To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the checks refer to in paragraph 2 on page 30 of the ONS Review of Pension Contribution Statistics published on 10th October had been carried out between the time the Statistical Working Group met in June and the Review was published in October; what the result was of those checks: and whether they were taken into account in providing the answer to the Right Honourable Member for Fylde, 29th October, Official Report, column 689W.
  The publication of the ONS Review of Pension Contributions Statistics on 10th October 2002 highlighted a number of areas where further work is necessary to improve our present data collection system. I will announce the timetable to take forward this work and the other recommendations shortly. The checks referred to in paragraph 2 on page 30 of the report will be carried out as part of that programme of work.

  923W
  The answer I gave to the Right Honourable Member for Fylde on 29th October is consistent with the data in Annex B table 1 of the report.
  Question 116—To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will estimate the average contribution per head of those who have made contributions or who have had contributions made on their behalf in each of the last five years, broken down by those who have had the contributions made to (a) individual and personal pensions, (b) self-administered occupational pension schemes and (c) insurance-managed occupational pension schemes; and if he will make a statement.
  Whilst approximate estimates could be obtained by dividing the numbers in Question 114 into the amounts in Question 118, these would not be reliable indicators of the build-up of pension rights. Estimates of those covered by personal and occupational pensions, such as those provided in reply to Question 114, will include those covered by schemes that are unfunded, noncontributory or subject to temporary contribution holidays and so are not closely related to the amounts in Question 118.
  Question 118—To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much has been contributed to funded pension schemes by individuals and employers in each of the last five years, broken down by individual and personal pensions, (b) self-administered occupational pension schemes and (c) insurance-managed occupational pension schemes.
  Estimates of the contributions to self-administered pension funds and premiums receivable by insurance companies related to pension business are given in the table below. Adjustments made to inquiry data to derive net flows to occupational schemes are made at the aggregate level and the apportionment between self-administered and insurance managed funds is approximate. Care, therefore, needs to be taken in interpreting these figures:

  £ billion

  Individual and personal premiums receivable by insurance companies

  Group or company sponsored premiums receivable by insurance companies

  Contributions to self-administered pension funds less refunds

  1997

  8.2

  10.5

  11.6

  1998

  9.0

  14.3

  11.3

  1999

  9.4

  16.2

  13.7

  2000

  10.3

  18.0

  15.7

  2001(p)

  11.6

  18.2

  16.2

  (p) Data for 2001 are provisional.

  This information is consistent with that provided in the answer to the Right Honourable Member for Fylde on 29th October.
  Question 119—To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what deduction, was made to the figure for gross contributions to allow for transfers of pension scheme assets that pass between the self administered and insurance-managed sector but remain within the same pension fund, when preparing the table on pages 31 and 32 of the ONS Review of Pension Contributions Statistics published on 10th October.
  The Pension Fund Income and Expenditure Inquiry (which collects data from Self-Administered Pension Funds) records estimates of transfers to self-administered funds from insurance managed funds and vice versa. These data are shown in column (d) of the response to question 112, above.

  Postcodes
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use his Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for(a) the collection and publication of data, (b) devising formulae for the distribution of grants and awards and (c) the delivery of services; and when such usages were last reviewed. [87739]
  924W
  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury, the Government Actuary's Department, the Royal Mint, and the Debt Management Office do not currently make use of postcode areas.

  National Savings and Investments does not make use of postcode areas to collect data. Postcoded individual records are used to analyse the responses to promotional campaigns.

  The Valuation Agency does not make use of postcode areas to collect data. Postcoded addresses are used to allow the public to obtain non-domestic rating assessments and Council Tax band data on its website and for operational purposes.

  HM Customs and Excise does make use of postcode areas to collect data. A variety of postcode-based information, from a range of sources, is aggregated at regional level for operational and policy-making decisions. Usage of postcoded information data is continuously reviewed.

  Inland Revenue does not make use of postcode areas to collect data. Postcoded individual records, held for administrative purposes, are used to derive published aggregated data for other geographies.

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) collects both social and economic data at the unit postcode level which are used to derive published aggregated data for other geographies. ONS keeps its use of unit postcodes for the collection of data under continuous review.

  None of the Departments or agencies publishes data for any postcode areas or makes use of postcode areas to devise formulae for the distribution of grants and awards.

  Pre-Budget Report Leaflet
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many summary leaflets entitled Steering a steady course: Delivering stability, enterprise and fairness in an uncertain world were printed to publicise the pre-Budget report statement; and what the cost was of publication. [87786]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 506W, and on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 597W.

  Programme Budgets
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with ministers on Government Departments and their Agencies taking advantage of full end-year flexibility in relation to their programme budgets. [87033]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since April 1999, Government Departments have had full end-year flexibility (EYF) on their Departmental Expenditure Limit budget allocation.
  925W
  The recent report of the Agency Policy Review recommended that Departments should ensure Agencies have three-year funding agreements and end-year flexibility, and report to the Treasury by the end of 2002 on their current and proposed management of EYF.

  Public Sector Productivity
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what private sector benchmarks the Government use to set targets for productivity gains of public sector employees. [85944]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The Government do not operate any benchmarks of that kind. In determining pay, it is for individual employers across the public sector to take decisions on their own pay arrangements to recruit and retain the staff they need to support the delivery of public services, within the resources available to them, taking account of their own particular circumstances and requirements. Generally, settlements above inflation can only be justified where there are specific recruitment or retention problems, or where the increases will be financed by reform and modernisation changes, including efficiency and productivity savings.

  Recycling
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what appraisal he has made of the case for the introduction of an incineration levy to encourage future reuse and recycling of waste. [87673]

  John Healey
  There is a range of issues associated with developing an effective waste management and disposal mix. The Government will therefore commission a review of the environmental and health effects of all waste management and disposal options. The Government will also consider how the use of economic instruments can be extended to provide a more comprehensive and coherent framework for waste management.

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportions of taxpayers who completed their self-assessment forms by 30 September 2002, and who are entitled to have additional tax due reflected in their PAYE code for 2003–04, have received demands for payment of the lump sum by 31 January 2003. [88021]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no legislation that entitles SA taxpayers to have underpayments collected under PAYE. However, where the taxpayer indicates that he would prefer that method, the Inland Revenue will usually be able to accommodate his wishes where:the SA return is received by 30 September;
  the underpayment is less than £2,000; and
  the whole amount can be included in the PAYE code in one year.
  The Inland Revenue will also try to code out underpayments arising from SA returns received after 30 September but before 30 November, but cannot guarantee it.
  926W
  Underpayments that are not coded out are included in the SA statement of account for payment on or before 31 January. The Department does not record how many underpayments are dealt with in this way where the taxpayer has indicated that he would prefer the underpayment to be coded out.

  Since October 2002, the process of coding out SA underpayments has been automated so this should happen in all appropriate cases.

  Sheriff Officers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much expenditure was incurred by the Inland Revenue through using sheriff officers in each of the last three years; and what proportion of that expenditure arose as a result of incorrect call-outs based on inaccurate information supplied by the Inland Revenue. [87603]

  Mr. Boateng
  Costs paid to sheriff officers in Scotland by the Inland Revenue in the last three years are:

  Year ending

  £

  31 October 2000

  1,292,768.04

  31 October 2001

  1,332,079.89

  31 October 2002

  1,904,717.72

  No information is kept to indicate what proportion of the figures above arose as a result of inaccurate information supplied by the Inland Revenue.

  No figures are available for costs paid to sheriff officers in England and Wales.

  No costs are paid to sheriff officers in Northern Ireland.

  Thalidomide
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 17 December, (ref, 87375) on the Thalidomide Trust, what categories of information on beneficiaries he holds. [88507]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Various Government Departments hold information on some of the beneficiaries, depending on the personal circumstances of the beneficiary concerned. In some cases this might be just a name, in others they would hold confidential information about the individual's tax affairs or health issues.

  Waste Management
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of increases in landfill tax on the role of incineration in waste management strategies. [86774]

  John Healey
  Future increases to the standard rate of landfill tax, announced in the recent Pre-Budget Report, are intended to encourage a move away from landfill as the primary means of waste disposal, as well as to encourage greater use of recycling. It will clearly be for the market to decide what role incineration plays once the increases have taken effect.
  927W
  The recent Pre-Budget Report also announced a review of the environmental and health effects of all waste management and disposal options. The role of incineration within the waste management and disposal mix, and the case for using economic instruments, will be considered in light of this work, and in consultation with other stakeholders.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when take-up figures for the working families tax credit will be published, and if they will include take-up figures for child care tax credit. [88217]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the first part of his question, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 24 July 2002,Official Report, column 1191W.

  Reliable estimates of the take-up rate for the child care tax credit are not available as the survey data, on which take-up rate estimates are based, yield too few sample cases.

  Workless Households
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many workless households there were in each year since 1997; how many of these are lone parent households with dependent children; and how many(a) working age people and (b) dependent children lived in these households. [88220]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 19 December 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about workless households. (88220)
  The attached table gives the information requested for the March to May period of each year from 1997 to 2002. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  Workless working-age households1, United Kingdom, March to May 1997 to 2002

  Thousand2

  March to May of each year

  Workless working age households1

  Workless lone parent households with dependent children3

  Working-age people in workless households

  Dependent children in workless households4

  1997

  3,271

  732

  4,719

  2,163

  1998

  3,237

  762

  4,634

  2,156

  1999

  3,158

  751

  4,491

  2,086

  2000

  3,070

  689

  4,323

  1,896

  2001

  3,063

  684

  4,333

  1,830

  2002

  3,133

  703

  4,412

  1,889

  1 Households that include at least one person of working age (i.e. a woman aged 16–59 or a man aged 16–64) where no-one is in employment. Includes estimates for households with unknown economic activity.

  2 Not seasonally adjusted

  3 Households that include a lone parent family unit, with or without others.

  4 Dependent children aged under 16.

  928W
  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates are Not Seasonally Adjusted (NSA) and have not been adjusted to take account of the recent Census 2001 results.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Car Dumping
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy on controlling the dumping of cars in cities. [86766]

  Mr. Meacher
  Statutory notice periods have been reduced so that abandoned and unlicensed vehicles can be removed from the highway more quickly. Local authorities can now use DVLA's powers to wheelclamp and remove unlicensed vehicles after 24 hours.

  The 2002 Finance Act includes outline powers to create a system of continuous registration. This will make it increasingly more difficult for keepers of abandoned vehicles to evade their responsibilities.

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her action to deal with coastal erosion. [86780]

  Alun Michael
  Total Government funding on flood and coastal defence has risen from £312 million in 1997–98 to a projected £564 million in 2005–06. This is a substantial increase and is proof of this Government's continuing commitment to maintenance and improvement of our flood and coastal defences.

  Bee-keeping
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact of EC Directive 92/65 on British bee-keeping. [86785]

  Alun Michael
  Where it applies, Directive 92/65 sets out the animal health requirements for trade in and imports into the Community of bees. Its main effect has been to help control the spread of American foulbrood, a notifiable disease of bees throughout the European Community.

  Illegal waste
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she has given to the Environment Agency on its measures to deal with illegal carriage of waste and disposal by illegal campers. [86786]

  Mr. Meacher
  No specific advice has been provided to the Environment Agency on measures to deal with illegal carriage of waste and disposal by illegal campers. However, a voluntary protocol has been agreed between the Agency, the local government association and the fly tipping forum on dealing with fly tipping incidents.

  Water Framework Directive
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what action her Department is taking to implement the water framework directive. [86788]

  Mr. Morley
  The Water Framework Directive has to be transposed into national law by December 2003. The Government published the second of three consultation papers on 29th October 2002, which consults on the key policy issues to transposition and implementation and a third consultation paper, with draft transposing Regulations and an updated Regulatory Impact assessment will be published by Defra next year. The Environment Agency will play a key role in implementation of the Directive as the "competent authority". My officials are working closely with the Agency to ensure that implementation deadlines will be met.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent representations she has received on the future of the Agricultural Wages Board. [86789]

  Alun Michael
  Since the Agricultural Wages Board last met on 29 August and following the NFU's regrettable withdrawal from the Board—now retracted—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 36 letters from members of this House concerning the future operation of the Agricultural Wages Board.

  Dairy Sector
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on the profitability of the dairy sector. [86790]

  Mr. Morley
  The profitability of the dairy sector in the UK has been adversely affected by low farmgate milk prices. The reasons for these low prices are complex, but include high levels of production earlier in the year combined with the effects of low world prices for dairy commodities. The average farmgate price of milk has recovered from its seasonal low in May, but it is still too low for many dairy farmers to be able to maintain the level of investment required to sustain their businesses.

  The prices negotiated between farmers and purchasers, or indeed processors and retailers, are private commercial matters in which the Government cannot get involved. Nevertheless, I do welcome the recent price rises announced by major retailers and dairy processors and hope that these will help alleviate some of the difficulties faced by dairy farmers. The Government can influence the environment in which price negotiations take place through the mechanisms of the dairy CAP and, during the period of lowest prices, we actively supported measures taken in Brussels to support Community markets and encourage exports.

  For the longer term we believe that a sustainable future for dairy farming is best secured through taking forward the recommendations in the Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Food and
  930W
  Farming, together with the Milk Task Force Report, and this is reflected in our Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy, launched on 12 December. My noble Friend, the Lord Whitty, has convened a number of meetings of an informal dairy supply chain group, including representatives of dairy farmers, which has addressed issues of concern to those in the dairy supply chain that came out of these reports. This group is also likely to consider how the industry can best address any lessons that emerge from the ongoing KPMG study on the structure of the UK dairy sector and milk pricing, commissioned by the Milk Development Council.

  Warm Front Scheme
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Leeds, North-West have benefited from the Government's warm front scheme. [86791]

  Alun Michael
  The Scheme Manager for the area, TXU Warm Front Ltd., has confirmed that between June 2000 and 9 December 2002, 10,096 households in the Leeds local authority area received assistance through Warm Front. The information is not identified by constituency.

  20-day Rule
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effects of the 20 days animal movement rule on reducing the spread of animal infections. [86793]

  Mr. Morley
  In line with the FMD Inquiry recommendations, a detailed risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis of the 20-day standstill is currently being carried out. We hope to be able to publish the emerging findings early in the new year.

  Earth Summit
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on steps being taken by her Department to meet the outcomes of the Earth Summit in Johannesburg. [86794]

  Mr. Meacher
  Defra is committed to take forward the commitments made at the Johannesburg Summit as part of our wider effort to promote sustainable development. In doing so, we shall focus particularly on those commitments for which we have lead responsibility in Government. A grid that sets out the key commitments from Johannesburg and indicates which Departments lead on these has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Flood Plains
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in which of the areas affected by flooding in autumn 2000, it is her Department's proposal that the main solution is the removal of buildings on flood plains. [86796]
  931W
  Mr. Morley
  Defra provides grant to local operating authorities for flood defence capital works that meet certain criteria. However responsibility for deciding which projects to promote and their timing rests with the operating authorities.

  The information requested is not readily available from all operating authorities. The Environment Agency advise that they are not aware of any specific proposals to buy properties in the floodplain and remove them, following the autumn 2000 floods as the solution to flooding.

  However, some flood protection schemes involve property acquisition to allow defences to be built, and in some areas where effective flood alleviation is difficult then the long-term solution may be relocation outside the flood risk area as buildings reach the end of their useful life.

  British-produced Food
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to promote British-produced food. [86797]

  Alun Michael
  Defra promotes the export of British produced food through sponsorship of and grant in aid to Food from Britain, which also assists with the marketing of regional speciality foods. As part of the Strategy on Sustainable Farming and Food, published recently, we will be introducing a new structure and additional support for regional food initiatives.

  Waste Refrigerators
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the ability of local authorities to deal with waste refrigerators. [86798]

  Mr. Meacher
  Special Grant Report No 109 was laid in Parliament on 14 November. The report, which was debated by the House on 16 December, details the proposed allocation to the relevant receiving authorities of the £40 million allocated this year to assist with the disposal of refrigerators. These allocations will be given to relevant local authorities shortly, and with this money, local authorities will be well equipped to deal with waste refrigerators.

  Farmers (Entry-level Payments)
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whom she has consulted about the proposed entry level scheme for payments to farmers; and how the scheme links with other agri-environmental schemes. [86799]

  Mr. Meacher
  In March this year my Department held an initial public consultation on agri-environment schemes in England, including the Policy Commission's recommendation for an entry level scheme. We received over 130 responses, and the analysis of the responses is available on the Defra website at: http://defraweb/erdp/schemes/landbased/review/consultnew.htm 932W
  Since then we have worked closely with a wide range of stakeholder organisations on developing the pilot for the entry level scheme. These include:
  Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers, Association of National Park Authorities, Country Land and Business Association, Countryside Agency, Environment Agency, English Heritage, English Nature, Farmcare, Game Conservancy Trust, Hill Farms Initiative, Local Government Association, National Farmers Union, National Trust, Royal Society Protection of Birds, Tenant Farmers Association, The Wildlife Trusts/Link, and the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group.
  The conclusions of this work have led to the document on the proposed future framework for agri-environment schemes in England that was issued for consultation earlier this week. This document is available on the Defra website at: http://defraweb/corporate/consult/current.htm

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at how many public inquiries on coastal protection proposals her Department has been represented in the last year for which information is available. [86801]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra officials held one local hearing in 2001–02 to consider views on unresolved objections to coast protection works proposed by local authorities.

  Bovine TB
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evidence has been obtained to establish a link between badgers and bovine tuberculosis. [86800]

  Mr. Morley
  The Krebs Review of bovine TB in cattle found compelling evidence that badgers are a significant source of infection for cattle. However, the relative contribution that badgers and other wildlife make to the disease is unknown. The ongoing badger culling field trial was designed by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) to evaluate what role, if any, badgers play in the transmission of bovine TB to cattle, and whether badger culling is an effective or sustainable bovine TB control mechanism. It will provide epidemiological data on the occurrence and prevalence of TB in badgers, its relationship to population density and social group size and the spatial relationship between TB-infected badgers and TB breakdowns in cattle herds.

  The ISG have advised that it is too early for a full analysis of results. It is a basic rule for scientific trials that results are not published prematurely. However, it has been possible to complete a preliminary analysis of the risk factors associated with cattle TB, and this is set out in the ISG's Third Report, available in the House Library.

  CAP
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her French and German counterparts regarding the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy. [86773]
  933W
  Margaret Beckett
  I have regularly spoken to my French and German counterparts about reform of the Common Agricultural Policy during recent meetings of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. I also met my German opposite number on this subject on 24 October and plan to meet my French counterpart early in the new year.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total area of farm holdings is in England and Wales which are part of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme; and if she will make a statement. [87329]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Stewardship Scheme operates in England, whereas the equivalent scheme in Wales, Tir Gofal, is the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. The total area of land under agreement in the Countryside Stewardship Scheme is approximately 338,000 hectares, not including the 2002 application round.

  Farmers (Retirement)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what plans she has to introduce a means-tested retirement scheme for farmers. [86787]

  Alun Michael
  We have no plans to introduce an early retirement scheme for farmers. The Government agrees with the findings of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food that a retirement incentive scheme would not offer value for money. However, as suggested by the Commission, Defra is developing a supporting pack of advice for farmers considering retirement, in consultation with stakeholders. The pack should be available by June 2003.

  Fuel Poverty Advisory Group
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the report of the fuel poverty advisory group. [86784]

  Alun Michael
  My right hon. Friend, the Lord Whitty, has only recently received the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group's first annual report and will be making a full assessment of it in due course.

  Recycling
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what(a) guidance and (b) advice is provided to Government Departments regarding the disposal of (i) printer cartridges and (ii) mobile phones; [85851]

  (2) what support her Department (a) provides and (b) plans to provide to (i) local authorities and (ii) charitable organisations regarding the recycling and reuse of (A) mobile phones and (B) printer cartridges; [85853]

  (3) what the total (a) volume and (b) number of printer cartridges (i) purchased and (ii) disposed of in the UK was in each year since 1990. [85855]
  934W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: There are around 90 million mobile phones in use and being stored the UK, and around 15 million of these are replaced every year. The majority of these are set to be reused or recycled through schemes such as FoneBack to which the main mobile phone companies are members. A number of phones are also being refurbished and sold to eastern Europe, Asia and Africa where there is a strong second hand market. In addition to this, the recently finalized text of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive sets a 75 per cent. target for the recovery and 65 per cent. target for the recycling of separately collected mobile phones.

  The average office printer uses around a dozen printer cartridges a year, while a home printer uses around five. There are currently a number of businesses and charities that will collect printer cartridges when they are disposed of and send them for re-manufacturing. The text of the WEEE Directive encourages the design of equipment for recycling in general, and prioritises the re-use, recycling and recovery of WEEE so as to reduce the disposal of waste. Under the Directive producers of electrical and electronic goods will be responsible for the recovery, treatment and environmentally sound disposal of their equipment.

  The Directive does not cover consumables such as printer cartridges when they are discarded separately. Devices are sometimes inserted into such consumables to prevent their reuse. The Department is therefore looking at effective measures to reduce this.

  Guidance and advice will be developed and provided to Government Departments, local authorities and charitable organisations on the disposal, recycling and reuse of mobile phones and printer cartridges as part of the implementation of the WEEE Directive.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [87694]

  Alun Michael
  The Department published progress against all its outstanding PSA targets in its Departmental Report 2002 (Cm 5422) and Autumn Performance Report 2002 (Cm 5698).

  Technetium-99
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her written statement of 11 December 2002,Official Report, columns 20–22WS, on technetium-99, whether THORP produces technetium-99 wastes; what evidence she considered when assessing whether the continued reprocessing of Magnox and thermal oxide spent fuel at Sellafield was justified; and when she expects to consider the question whether to undertake a review of justification under Article 6(2) of Directive 96/29/Evratom. [87829]
  935W
  Margaret Beckett
  THORP does produce technetium-99 wastes, but these account for a small fraction of the totality of technetium-99 discharges from the Sellafield site. By far the largest proportion of technetium-99 discharges from that site originate from the reprocessing of Magnox spent fuel.

  We have considered the information that has been provided by the Environment Agency in its published documents, and information that has been provided in the form of representations both to the Agency and directly to Ministers concerning technetium-99. We have concluded that as discharges of technetium-99 constitute only one small aspect of the practice of Magnox spent fuel reprocessing and the practice of spent oxide fuel reprocessing, it would be more appropriate to consider whether their justification should be reviewed when considering the other radioactive discharges that arise from those practices.

  With regard to the reprocessing of spent Magnox fuel, the Environment Agency has carried out a separate review of the remaining radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site (other than technetium-99), including those from Magnox reprocessing and, in August, published its proposed decision for Ministers to consider. We intend to come to a view on the Agency's proposals, and come to a conclusion as to whether it is necessary to review the practice of Magnox reprocessing as to justification in the spring of next year.

  With regard to the reprocessing of spent oxide fuel, the Government set out the position with respect to the continued operation of THORP in the White Paper on Managing Nuclear Energy which was published in July 2002. If and when any proposals for new contracts for THORP are received, the Government will review the range of issues involved in increasing the current volume of oxide fuel to be reprocessed. One of those issues will be the appropriateness of carrying out a review of the practice of reprocessing spent oxide fuel.

  Thailand
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what commitments concerning agricultural produce the Government has entered into as part of or in association with the trade agreement reached in October with Thailand. [81817]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 21 November 2002, Official Report, column 218W.

  Water Directive
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure the timely implementation of the water directive. [86779]

  Margaret Beckett
  Much work is already in hand. We published the second of three consultation papers this October and a third is planned for next year. The Environment Agency are also gearing up for implementation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly
  To ask the Prime Minister how many departmental Christmas cards he intends to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he has sent this year. [88119]

  The Prime Minister
  I shall be sending 1,260 official Christmas cards which cost £267. The despatch and staff time for posting those cards is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

  Christmas Security
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Prime Minister how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88120]

  The Prime Minister
  No public money will be spent on entertaining and other festive activities this Christmas. Around £2,500 will be spent on Christmas decorations for official purposes, and is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

  European Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether his speech in Cardiff on 28 November 2002, entitled "A Clear Course for Europe", represents Government policy towards the European Union; and whether the(a) Foreign Office, (b) DTI and (c) Cabinet colleagues were consulted on the speech before delivery. [88274]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on(a) the occasion and (b) the audience of his speech in Cardiff of 28 November 2002 entitled "A Clear Course for Europe". [88275]

  The Prime Minister
  I spoke to an audience which included business people, community leaders and political representatives to set out the Government's policy towards the European Union, and in particular its position on the debate surrounding the Convention on the Future of Europe.

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Security
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have been put in place
  937W
  within the air traffic control system to deal with the threat posed to civil aircraft by surface-to-air missiles; [87844]

  (2) what recent advice the Government have provided to British civilian airlines on counter measures to deal with surface-to-air missiles; [87846]

  (3) what discussions he has had with allied countries about the threat posed to civil aircraft from surface to air missiles; [87849]

  (4) what consultations he has had with defence contractors about the development of counter measures against surface-to-air missiles for civil airliners; [87847]

  (5) what plans he has to introduce regulations for the introduction of counter measures for civil aircraft to deal with surface-to-air missiles. [87848]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: Appropriate action has been taken and we are giving urgent consideration to the issues in conjunction with other relevant parties.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many departmental Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he has sent this year. [88111]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We shall be sending up to 800 departmental Christmas cards at a cost of £731 + VAT, in accordance with practise over very many years. This expenditure is made in line with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting. A sample copy of the official Christmas card has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88136]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, all expenditure incurred on decorations, entertainment and any other festive activities is strictly for official purposes only, and is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

  Dredging
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effect on the environment of dredging in the Dee Estuary. [86795]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is currently considering an application from the Port of Mostyn for consent to dredge in the Dee Estuary outside their harbour limits. The applicants have produced an 938W
  Environmental Statement assessing the impacts on the environment resulting from the dredge and this is currently being advertised and is available for inspection locally. Representations about the application and associated Statement can be made to the Department before January 12th 2003 and we are also seeking comments from specific bodies in the area who have environmental responsibilities. Wirral Borough Council is one of these.

  Highway Maintenance
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what funding has been allocated to local authorities for highway maintenance for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2005–06(a) in total and (b) for each local authority; [86096]

  (2) what support was given by his Department to local authorities (a) in total and (b) for each authority, in each financial year since 2000–01 for roads maintenance and repair, broken down by different sources of this funding; and what changes are planned in the next 10 years to the level of funding. [86108]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Before 2000–01 capital allocations were made under the TSG/TPP system. Since then allocations have been made under the Local Transport Plan system. Details of capital funding for English local authorities outside London for the years 1997–98 to 2004–05 have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Capital funding for maintenance in London is a matter for the Mayor.

  Revenue funding for highway maintenance is provided through Revenue Support Grant (RSG). RSG is an unhypothecated grant provided to Local Authorities to enable them to carry out their functions; local authorities can choose to spend this on any services for which they have responsibility, subject to local spending priorities. The amounts provided for highway maintenance within the national totals for RSG in the years 1997–98 to 2004–05 are set out in the table.

  Highway maintenance revenue funding between 1997–08 and 2004–05

  £ million cash

  Year

  Local roads revenue

  1997–98

  1,658

  1998–99

  1,721

  1999–2000

  1,763

  2000–01

  1,859

  2001–02

  1,905

  2002–03

  1,955

  2003–04

  2,005

  2004–05

  2,055

  The Government is 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.

  M6
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the economic impact of traffic congestion on the M6. [87911]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The consultants gave consideration to this aspect of the MidMan Multi Model study. A copy of this report can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  In response to its recommendations, the Secretary of State for Transport last week announced that the widening of the M6 between junctions 11a and 19 will be progressed. It is expected that the Highways Agency will add a scheme to its Targeted Programme of Improvements during the first half of 2003.

  Motorway (South Preston and Warrington North)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what part of the motorway between South Preston and Warrington North will remain three lanes; and which council areas will be affected; [87517]

  (2) what plans he has to make the Warrington North to Preston South section of the M6 four lanes; and what plans and costings have been carried out of the four lanes proposal. [87518]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 19 December 2002:
  The Transport Minister has asked me to write to reply to your recent questions about plans for the M6 motorway between Warrington North and Preston South.

  Miles

  Motorways

  Trunk road

  Year of completion

  Newly constructed

  Widened

  Upgraded from APTR

  Newly constructed

  Widened

  1997–98

  11.37

  12.5

  13.125

  46.875

  18.06

  1998–99

  0

  7.94

  13.125

  12.375

  7.875

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  0

  24.75

  2.5

  2000–01

  10.25

  0

  0

  13.75

  0

  2001–02

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2002–03

  0

  0

  0

  1.8

  11.875

  Sub total

  21.62

  20.44

  26.25

  99.55

  40.31

  Grand total

  68.31

  139.86

  I hope that this is helpful. If you would like more information, Graham Rainbow of the Programme Planning and Development team, would be pleased to help. He can be contacted at our offices at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham B15 1BL, or by telephone on 0121 678 8008.

  Redhill Aerodrome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he intends to include a proposal to develop Redhill Aerodrome in his consultation on airport capacity in the South East; and if he will make a statement; [87990]
  940W
  There are currently no proposals to make the Warrington North to Preston South section of the M6 four lanes. However as the Secretary of State said last week we do keep these matters under review. You also asked for confirmation of which council areas are affected by this route. The M6 passes through the Boroughs of Warrington, Wigan, St. Helens, Chorley and the City of Preston.
  You may be interested to note that the Agency is currently progressing a Route Management Strategy (RMS) on the M6 between Junction 20 at Lymm to the Scottish Border as part of our 10-year plan to make best use of this route. Early investigations on the RMS have identified congestion problems during the peak periods especially between Junctions 24 and 28. However, further study work is needed before we can incorporate any local network schemes into the RMS management plan.
  We expect to hold Public consultation on the draft RMS during spring next year. I will write to you again nearer the time with more details. In the meantime if you need any further information, please contact the Highways Agency's Regional Manager for Network Strategy in the North West, Malcolm Roberts, at Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester, M1 4BE, Tel: 0161 930 5668.

  New Roads
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new(a) motorways and (b) trunk roads have been constructed in each of the last five years. [87910]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Nigel Evans, dated 19 December 2002:
  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking how many miles of new motorways and trunk roads have been constructed in each of the last five years.
  In England a total length of 68.31 miles of new motorway and 139.86 miles of new trunk road have been constructed over the last five years. More detailed information is shown in the table below.

  (2) if he will make a statement on road links to Redhill Aerodrome; [87991]

  (3) what representations the Department has received regarding plans for the development of a major airport based at Redhill Aerodrome; and if he will make a statement; [87994]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the effect on air movements at Gatwick Airport of the development of an international airport at Redhill Aerodrome capable of transporting (a) 2.6 million and (b) 15 million passengers per year; [87992]
  941W
  (5) what proposals he has received regarding the development of Redhill Aerodrome as a major passenger airport; and if he will publish them. [87993]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As a response to The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) Consultation Redhill Aerodrome Limited lodged on 13 December a submission that includes proposals to develop a new stand-alone passenger airport on the existing aerodrome site.

  We will make publicly available in due course all responses to the consultation, except those marked confidential. In the mean time publication is a matter for the authors.

  As part of the early SERAS analysis two options for the development of Redhill as an adjunct to Gatwick airport were considered. Details of this work are contained in Chapter three of the Stage One appraisal findings report. Following the conclusion of the first stage of the SERAS study, Ministers decided that these options would not be taken forward for more detailed assessment in the latter stages of the study.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced to Parliament on 28 November that the consultation on airports capacity will be extended until we have consulted on proposals in respect of Gatwick. 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 when we publish the further consultation paper in the new year.

  Road Improvements (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will include ways of improving traffic flows on both A614 and A165 in the further studies on road improvements in Yorkshire announced on 10 December. [87382]

  Mr. Spellar
  The further studies on road improvements in Yorkshire announced by the Secretary of State in the Statement on Transport Investment on 10 December refer to the two Multi-Modal studies that have been undertaken in the Yorkshire and the Humber region: the South and West Yorkshire Multi-Modal Study (SWYMMS) and the Hull East-West Corridor Multi-Modal Study (HUMMS), on which Ministers expect to take decisions next year. Neither of these relate to the A614 or A165 roads over any of their lengths.

  The A614 and A165 roads are the responsibility of East Riding of Yorkshire Council as local highway authority and the Government allocates funds annually to local authorities to spend on their transport infrastructure.

  Road Signs
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce metric distance signs on roads; and if he will make a statement. [88223]
  942W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The position remains as set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on 11 July 2002,Official Report, column 1116W.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [87702]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: My Department published on Tuesday progress against all its outstanding PSA targets in "Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report."

  Surface-to-air Missiles
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he assesses the threat posed to British civil airlines from surface to air missiles; and what actions he proposes to take. [87997]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government believe that the terrorist threat to UK interests, including civil aviation, both in the UK and overseas, is a very real one, and has taken a range of actions to manage the risk. So far as the threat to civil airlines from surface to air missiles is concerned, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today [87844]

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Solicitor-General what role the Attorney-General plays in relation to the firefighters' dispute. [83558]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General has the power to apply to the Court for an injunction to prevent threatened breaches of the criminal law. This power is to be exercised in the public interest, which is exercised in independent judgment in the role as Attorney-General rather than as a member of Government. Such an application is always exceptional and is only instituted where there is the prospect of genuine, serious and irreparable harm and is judged that it is in the public interest to make the application.

  It is the Attorney-General's duty to keep under constant review the question whether to exercise this power. In order to determine where the public interest lies he may consult as he has been doing with ministerial colleagues to ensure that he is properly informed as to the public interest consultations arising. The Attorney has been informed also of the views of fire authority representatives in relation to the potential threat to public safety. But the power to apply for an injunction is one for the Attorney-General to exercise in the public interest and the decision is for him alone.

  Postcodes
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Solicitor-General what use her Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for(a) the collection and publication of data and (b) the delivery of services; and when such usages were last reviewed. [87737]

  The Solicitor-General
  Neither my Department nor its agencies make use of postcode areas data.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many departmental Christmas cards he and his ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he has sent this year. [88116]

  Mr. Straw
  I sent 905 Christmas cards at a cost of:

  a) £932.95;

  b) £97.20 to post 360 first class. 415 cards were sent through the FCO diplomatic bag and a further 130 via the government mail system. There was no separate charge for this;

  c) £301.22 for an A2 to spend 4 working days updating and amending the database throughout the year, ordering the cards and sending them out.

  Dr. MacShane sent 250 cards in 2002 at a cost of:

  a) £175;

  b) £16.20 to post 60 first class. The remaining 190 were sent through the FCO diplomatic bag:

  c) £160 for an A2 to spend 17 hours updating and amending recipient details, ordering the cards and sending them out.

  Baroness Symons sent 451 cards in 2002 at a cost of:

  a) £315;

  b) £114.75 to post 425 first class. The remaining 26 were sent through the FCO diplomatic bag or via the government mail system;

  c) £184.80 for an A2 to spend 20 hours updating and amending recipient details, ordering the cards and sending them out.

  Mr. O'Brien sent 185 cards (106 Christmas cards, 79 Bid cards) in 2002 at a cost of:

  a) £129.50;

  b) £15.12 to post 56 first class. The remaining 129 were sent through the FCO diplomatic bag or via the government mail system.

  c) £337.50 for a B3 to spend 32 hours updating and amending recipient details, ordering the cards and sending them out.

  Mr. Rammell sent 225 cards at a cost of:

  a) £157.50;

  b) £27.54 to post 102 first class. 29 were sent through the FCO diplomatic bag and a further 94 via the government mail system;

  c) £129.36 for an A2 to spend 14 hours sending out the Christmas cards.

  944W
  Baroness Amos sent 380 cards at a cost of:

  a) £266;

  b) £67.77 to post 251 first class. 56 were sent through the FCO diplomatic bag and a further 73 via the Government mail system;

  c) £206.01 for an A2 to spend 27 hours updating and amending recipient details and sending out the Christmas cards. And 22.50 for a B3 to spend two hours sending out Christmas cards.

  A sample copy of my and all other ministers Christmas cards will be placed in the Library of the House.

  My cards were ordered through Card Aid which donates all profits to charity. £205 will be donated to UNICEF this year. All other ministers choose their cards from the official FCO selection. The profits of the official FCO card are split between the FCO Welfare Fund and the Diplomatic Families Association Emergency Welfare Fund.

  All expenditure incurred in the purchase and dispatch of official cards is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs where records of applications for registration as a citizen of the UK and its colonies submitted at the British Embassy in the former colony of Aden in 1970 have been retained; and whether they can be inspected by members of the public. [87424]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Applications for registration as a citizen of the UK and colonies, which were submitted to the British Embassy in Aden in 1970 would have been forwarded to the Home Office for consideration. Copies of these applications were not retained at the British Embassy. Any enquiries about individual cases should be made to the Home Office.

  European Union
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the acquisition of full legal personality by the European Union. [87907]

  Mr. MacShane
  Recognition of the legal personality of the Union would have the advantage of clarity and simplicity. But if the European Union were to have its legal personality recognised in the European treaties it could only be on the basis that the distinct arrangements for common foreign and security policy, and aspects of justice and home affairs were fully safeguarded, along with the existing arrangements for representation in international bodies. The Government would need to be sure that the necessary safeguards were in place before taking a decision on this issue.

  Iraq
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British(a) individuals and (b) companies were identified in the Iraqi declaration to the United Nations Security

  945W
  Council as having supplied arms, weapons-related technology or material to Iraq, giving in each case (i) the nature of the arms, technology or material supplied and (ii) the date of supply. [87868]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on 17 December UIN 87497.

  Oil Revenues
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the volume is of unspent oil revenues allocated for Iraqi Kurdistan in the escrow account of the UN oil-for-food programmes; and what the reasons are for withholding aid to Iraqi Kurdistan. [87078]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer of 16 December 2002]: As of 11 December US$3.3 billion of 'Oil For Food' revenue remained unallocated by Iraq in the UN escrow account. US$1.2billion of the revenue allocated to the UN humanitarian programme in northern Iraq is currently unspent.

  The Iraqi regime has consistently obstructed improvements in northern Iraq, delaying the arrival of de-mining equipment that could save lives and denying visas to UN personnel involved in essential humanitarian projects. It has also restricted the distribution of food and medicines to northern Iraq.

  Sandy Mitchell
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what talks he has had with the Saudi Arabian government on the imprisonment of a constituent, Sandy Mitchell. [87300]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and ministerial colleagues have raised the cases of Mr. Mitchell and the other British men detained in Saudi Arabia at the highest levels with the Saudi authorities. We remain deeply concerned about these cases. The men's welfare is our paramount concern. We continue to work tirelessly to resolve the cases. We are in close contact with the Saudi authorities and the men's lawyers. We also continue to make consular visits to the men.

  Uzbekistan
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed human rights with representatives of the Government of Uzbekistan. [87653]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  When I last met the Uzbek Ambassador on 4 September, I raised human rights. The Permanent Under Secretary also raised human rights issues with Uzbek Foreign Minister Kamilov in London in September. Officials raise the subject regularly, most recently with the Uzbek Ambassador on 16 December. The UK also makes representations with the EU wherever possible and was recently part of an EU delegation making representations to Deputy Foreign Minister Safaev on the deaths of two prisoners, apparently due to torture. We also make statements on human rights issues, both with the EU and bilaterally:946W
  our Ambassador made a strong speech in October at the opening of the Freedom House NGO in Tashkent, while in December the EU made a statement protesting about the unfair trial of Iskander Khudaiberganov.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the President of the Council how many departmental Christmas cards he and his ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he has sent this year. [88117]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  700 Christmas cards (in three different designs) were purchased for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and me to send at a total cost of £763.75. These cards were bought in aid of The Children's Society and Amnesty International. The postage cost is some £70; the majority of cards were sent via the Inter-Departmental Service or parliamentary mail. Some 10 hours staff time was spent in addressing and despatching the cards; the gross salary costs for this work were some £75. Sample copies of these cards have placed in the Library.

  Given the hon. Member's interest in this matter, I will include him on my Christmas card list for next year.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the President of the Council how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88126]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  This Christmas, the Privy Council Office (PCO) spent £2,112 on entertaining, £15 on decorations and nothing on other festive activities. The expenditure on entertaining was accounted for by my traditional Christmas party, held to thank all those (hon. Members, parliamentary clerks, officials and others) who helped me in my capacity as Leader of the House. All PCO expenditure was Department-wide, and nothing was spent in Ministers' private offices or in official residences.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of introducing 80 per cent. mandatory rate relief for all community amateur sports clubs via the Local Government Bill; and if he will make a statement; [87647]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the proportion of community amateur sports clubs that would qualify for mandatory rate relief under the provisions of the Local Government Bill; and if he will make a statement. [87648]
  947W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Local Government Bill does not include provisions for introducing 80 per cent. mandatory rate relief for community amateur sports clubs and so no assessment has been made of the impact of introducing such a scheme.

  There is also no estimate available of the proportion of community amateur sports clubs that would qualify for mandatory rate relief under the provisions in the Local Government Bill. Community amateur sports clubs would benefit from the rate relief scheme for small businesses in the Local Government Bill. The scheme would provide mandatory rate relief of up to 50 per cent. for properties with rateable values of up to £3,000. For larger properties the percentage of relief would gradually taper off, with no relief for properties with rateable values above £8,000.

  Local authorities may grant up to 100 per cent. relief at their discretion to community amateur sports clubs that qualify under the new mandatory relief scheme for small businesses.

  The rating lists do not record the use of property by voluntary or community amateur sports clubs as distinct from other sports clubs. The rating lists for England include about 16,000 sports properties, including those used by community amateur sports clubs as well as professional and commercial sports bodies. Of the 16,000 sports properties in England, around 7,500 have rateable values of under £3,000 and a further 4,000 have rateable values above £3,000 and below £8,000.

  As explained in the White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", which was published in December 2001, mandatory rate relief is already available for all premises used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes, provided that they meet the criteria for charitable status. The Charity Commission announced in November 2001 that they will recognise as charitable purposes "the promotion of community participation in healthy recreation by the provision of facilities for the playing of particular sports", and the advancement of the physical recreation of young people not undergoing formal education".

  Where individual clubs do not meet the Charity Commission's criteria, or where they decide not to seek charitable status, local authorities retain discretion to grant rate relief to any non-profit making body. Local authorities have the power to grant relief where it is in the interests of local council taxpayers for them to do so. We have recently published on our website, revised guidance for local authorities and ratepayers on rate relief for charities and other non-profit making organisations.

  In addition to this specific assistance, the Government has also introduced a tax package (legislated for in Finance Bill 2002), which will provide a range of tax reliefs for community amateur sports clubs on their income and on the donations which local people make to support them. The tax package follows that outlined in the "Promoting Sport in the Community" consultation document—mandatory rate relief was not part of the tax package which was consulted upon. The Government believes that the tax package and the option of charitable status, together with the help
  948W
  available for clubs under the non-domestic rating system, represent a generous system of support sports clubs.

  Asylum Seekers (Rough Sleeping)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact on the number of rough sleepers of the coming into effect of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylums Act 2002 on 8 January 2003; what steps lie has taken to address change in the number of rough sleepers after that date; and if he will make a statement. [85816]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The purpose of the new policy is to ensure that those wishing to seek asylum do so at the first practical opportunity on arrival in the United Kingdom. If that purpose is fulfilled, there is no reason to suppose that the coming into force of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 will result in an increase in the number of rough sleepers.

  Bain Inquiry
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much is to be paid to the individual members of the Bain Inquiry into the fire service. [88499]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my lion. Friend, the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 129W.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost is of the Bain Inquiry into the Fire Service. [88500]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The estimated cost of the independent review of the Fire Service chaired by Professor Sir George Bain is £468,000.

  Business Co-ordination Unit
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when a Minister from his Department last visited a business in(a) West Sussex and (b) East Worthing and Shoreham as part of the work of the Business Co-ordination Unit. [87468]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Business Co-ordination Unit have not arranged any Office of the Deputy Prime Minister ministerial visits to either West Sussex or East Worthing and Shoreham since the creation of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Business Improvement Districts
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what systems he has assessed for voting in relation to business improvement districts; and how the Government proposes to ensure that the system is simple. [87971]

  Mr. Leslie
  Clause 52 of the Local Government Bill, which was introduced into Parliament on 25 November, sets out the rules governing the BID ballot. A successful ballot will have to meet two tests. Firstly a simple majority of those voting in the BID ballot must vote in
  949W
  favour. Secondly, those voting in favour must represent a majority by rateable value of the hereditaments (rateable properties) of those voting. This "dual-key" mechanism means that a scheme cannot be forced through by large firms against the wishes of small firms, or vice versa.

  Secondly, Clause 57 of the Local Government Bill gives my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister the power to make regulations on the timing of BID ballots, the non-domestic ratepayers entitled to vote in the ballot, the question to be asked in the ballot, the form the ballot will take, the persons who are to hold ballots, and how the ballots are to be conducted. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is holding discussions with representatives of local authorities, rating professionals and members of the business community to ensure that the rules on voting are as simple as possible, while safeguarding the interests of those who will be liable to pay the BID levy.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many departmental Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he has sent this year. [88118]

  Mr. Leslie
  In accordance with the conventions followed by all administrations the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister shall be sending out up to 1,820 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Christmas cards, purchased for a total cost of £1,364.40 plus VAT. It is Office of the Deputy Prime Minister policy to send mail by second class post where ever possible. Ministers will sign the cards and they will he placed in envelopes and sent out by Office of the Deputy Prime Minister staff as part of their normal duties. Sample copies of the cards have been placed in the Library of the House, All expenditure incurred in the purchase and despatch of official Christmas cards is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88121]

  Mr. Leslie
  Any expenditure incurred on decorations, entertainment and any other festive activities is strictly for official purposes only, and is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

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

  Deprivation
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will indicate the level of deprivation which exists in each local council area. [88341]

  Mrs. Roche
  A table showing how local authority districts in England are ranked, relative to each other, on the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000 (IMD 2000) has been placed in the Library of the House. All 354 local authority districts (as at April 1998) are ranked with the most deprived authority being given a rank of 1.

  Patterns of deprivation are complex—in some areas the entire district may be generally deprived but with no severe areas, while elsewhere deprivation may be concentrated in very severe pockets, which coexist alongside generally affluent areas. The IMD 2000 has reflected these different patterns through six different measures that are all equally valid. The six measures are:
  The concentration measure tells us how severe deprivation is in each authority's 'hot spots' of deprivation;
  The extent measure is the percentage of each district's population that live in one of the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in England;
  The 'average scores' and 'average ranks' are the average level of deprivation across the entire district;
  The income scale and employment scale measure how many people suffer from income and employment deprivation respectively.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently involved in a project to consider options for strengthening and updating the Indices of Deprivation 2000 (ID 2000). The Stage One Consultation Report contains preliminary proposals for updating the ID 2000 and is open for consultation until 15 January 2003.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his Department's performance in the disposal of empty homes in the last year for which figures are available. [87942]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Fire Service College, an Executive Agency of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, owns 39 residential properties, which are kept to house staff on secondment to the College. Currently, a small number of properties are not required for staff use and are let on short-term tenancies. One property is currently empty and due to be let by the end of January.

  Fire Services
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries as a result of fire there were in each of the last five years; and what proportion occurred (i) between 11pm and 6 am and (ii) during the hours of darkness. [88484]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The number of deaths and/or injuries by the time of the fire is tabled below. Data are shown for 1997 to 2001 (the last five years of data available).

  Data relating to the severity of injury resulting from fire are not held centrally and could be obtained only at

  951W
  disproportionate cost. Information is collected on the type of injury but not the severity of those injuries.

  Deaths and injuries from fires by time of day1, 1997–2001

  Proportion occurring between 11 pm and 6am

  Rate per 1,000 fires between 11 pm and 6am

  Proportion occurring between 6am and 11pm

  Rate per 1,000 fires between 6am and 11 pm

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths(%)

  Injuries(%)

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths(%)

  Injuries(%)

  Deaths

  Injuries

  1997

  723

  18,583

  35

  31

  5

  124

  65

  69

  3

  83

  1998

  656

  18,198

  33

  30

  5

  117

  67

  70

  3

  83

  1999

  623

  18,198

  29

  30

  3

  103

  71

  70

  3

  77

  2000

  623

  17,640

  34

  31

  4

  100

  66

  69

  2

  74

  20002

  (595)

  2001

  627

  17,288

  32

  30

  3

  89

  68

  70

  3

  71

  20012

  (606)

  1 The time of day is denoted as the time the emergency call was received by the local authority fire brigade.

  2 The 2000 and 2001 data for fatalities are estimated to account for the revisions as later information is received. Calculations are based on the provisional total of deaths.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  John Barrett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the average response time to emergency fire calls during(a) the recent firefighters' strike and (b) full firefighter cover. [88485]

  Mr. Raynsford
  During the Fire Brigade Union strike between 22 and 30 November 2002, 10,793 fire-related incidents were dealt with by the armed forces and 1,367 by firefighters working for local authority fire brigades. The armed forces' remit was to ensure that all incidents were dealt with where there was a confirmed threat to life (Category A) or a possible threat to life (Category B). In the event, all non-life threatening (Category C) incidents were also attended. An analysis of serious fire-related incidents (mostly Category A) in the north-west of England showed an average response time by the armed forces of 7.2 minutes. The figure for serious incidents in London was 13.8 minutes, largely reflecting traffic problems; and in the south-west, which is a largely rural area, the average response time for serious incidents was 14.2 minutes. These figures are not directly comparable with Fire Service data as fire brigades' target response times are based on four risk categories, ranging from five minutes for main shopping and business centres to 20 minutes for rural areas. Nevertheless, they do demonstrate the highly professional job performed by the armed forces.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many emergency fire calls were not answered during the recent firefighters' strike. [88486]

  Mr. Raynsford
  During the Fire Brigades Union strike from 22 to 30 November 2002, 30,278 fire-related 999 calls were received by the Joint Operational Control Centres. All such telephone calls were answered. Because of multiple calls per incident, this gave rise to 20,237 incidents. Around five per cent. of calls were filtered out immediately as not being emergencies, and advance police attendance turned back firefighter response in around 40 per cent. of cases. The armed forces therefore attended 10,793 incidents, and firefighters working for local authority fire brigades attended 1,367 incidents. All fire related incidents which required a firefighter response were attended.
  952W
  It is not possible to identify separate data relating to the hours of darkness.

  Green Belt (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures are in place to retain the green belt areas in the West Midlands. [86792]

  Mr. McNulty
  Government policy on the Green Belt throughout England remains, as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 2, which states that protecting the countryside from encroachment is one of the main purposes of including land in the Green Belt.

  PPG 2 continues to require that local authority development plans include a strict presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

  Green Belt designations can only be established or altered through development plans. Once approved Green Belts should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. If such an alteration were proposed, the Secretary of State would then wish to be satisfied that the authority has considered opportunities for development within urban areas before allowing it to take place.

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 711W, what assessment he has made of the ability of each group to access home ownership. [87941]

  Mr. McNulty
  Many teachers, health workers and police are experiencing difficulties in accessing home ownership in London, the south-east and other housing hot spots. Starter Home Initiative scheme managers assess each applicant's circumstances and provide assistance only to those key workers who would not otherwise be able to buy their own home within a reasonable travelling distance of their work place. Over 1,500 teachers, health workers and police have been assisted through the Starter Home Initiative to date.

  Homelessness
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of lettings were made available to homeless households in priority need by(a) local

  953W
  authorities and (b) registered social landlords, broken down by (i) region and (ii) local authority area in 2000–01. [87988]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information reported by local authorities in England on their Housing Investment Programme returns in respect of lettings of their stock, and nominations to that of registered social landlords, made during 2000–01 has been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was given to Cambridge City Council towards relieving homelessness in each of the last five years. [87985]

  Mrs. Roche
  Funding to local authorities for the provision of homeless services is allocated through Revenue Support Grant (RSG) as part of the annual local government finance settlement. RSG is unhypothecated to particular services and up to the current financial year was calculated on the basis of standard spending assessments for individual local authorities. It is for each local authority to decide how much RSG it receives, and its other resources, should be directed towards any particular service. Voluntary Agencies working with Cambridge City Council received almost £900,000 to tackle rough sleeping from 1999–2000.

  Housing (Black and Minority Ethnic People)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research he has commissioned into the use of rent assessment panels by BME tenants in the private rented sector, following the recommendation in the DTLR (Housing Directorate) Action Plan, "Addressing the Needs of BME People"; and what steps he will take to address the problems that have been identified. [88264]

  Mr. McNulty
  To date, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not commissioned any research into the use of Rent Assessment Panels (RAPs) by BME groups. The Action Plan, "addressing the housing needs of BME people", made it clear that an examination of the use of RAP's would be subject to resources and other priorities.

  Priority is currently being given to the implementation of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, including measures affecting the leasehold valuation tribunals, which are made up of the RAPs by BME groups will be undertaken after the anticipated completion of the implementation of the Act on spring 2003.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of(a) African, (b) Afro-Caribbean, (c) Chinese and Vietnamese, (d) Bangladeshi, (e) Indian and (f) Pakistani households are in overcrowded accommodation. [88265]

  Mr. McNulty
  If overcrowding is measured by the 'bedroom standard' from Survey of English Housing data, averaged over the last three years (1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02), the estimated percentages of households in overcrowded accommodation (i.e. one or more bedrooms below the standard) are:(a) African 15 per cent., (b) Afro-Caribbean 6 per cent.,
  954W
  (c) Chinese 7 per cent., (d) Bangladeshi 30 per cent., (e) Indian 7 per cent. and (f) Pakistani 22 per cent. The corresponding percentages for other ethnic groups are : white 2 per cent., 'other black groups' 9 per cent., and 'mixed and other ethnic groups', including Vietnamese, 9 per cent.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to help local authorities(a) promote stock transfer and (b) improve council tenants' knowledge of housing associations. [87939]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities should involve tenants fully in any decisions about the future ownership and management of their homes. This includes both appraisal of the options available to achieve the decent home standard, and development of the chosen investment option.

  If housing transfer is the option chosen, tenants should be involved in choosing the successor housing association. Information about the housing association sector is available from the Housing Corporation and the National Housing Federation. The local authority and the tenants' independent adviser should also familiarise tenants with the work of local housing associations.

  Housing Need (Somali Community)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information his Department has collated on the housing needs and experiences of the Somali community in the UK. [88266]

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

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much in grants the Government is proposing to allocate to each local authority. [88336]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced details of the allocation to individual authorities of the £43.9 billion of Revenue Support Grant, Business Rates and Principal Formula Police Grant in 2003–04 on Thursday 5 December. Details were also announced on the same day of most of the grants for specific Personal Social Service's initiatives as set out in the Department of Health letter to local authority social services' departments (LASSL(2002)11). In addition local education authorities have received information on allocations for most of the Standards Fund in the circular "The Standards Fund 2003–04", and the Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) circular "HB/CTB S8/2002" provided councils with their 2003–04 allocations for HB/CTB Administration Subsidy. Local authorities will also already have received their indicative Neighbourhood Renewal Fund allocations for 2003–04. Departments will be announcing remaining grants as soon as possible.
  955W
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what use his Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for(a) the collection and publication of data, (b) devising formulae for the distribution of grants and awards and (c) the delivery of services; and when usages were last reviewed. [87769]

  Mr. Leslie
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as the necessary information is collated.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the proposed floors and ceilings in the new funding system for local government will be removed. [88335]

  Mr. Leslie
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made clear in his statement to the House on 5 December 2002,Official Report, column 1079, we expect floors and ceilings to be part of the system indefinitely.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the level of council tax rates in each authority. [88337]

  Mr. Leslie
  Council tax levels in each authority in England are already published. Figures for each financial year since its introduction in 1993–94 are available from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at www.local.dtlr.gov.uk/finance/ct.htm.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much each local authority has spent below its SSA in the current financial year. [88338]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 18 December 2002,Official Report.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact which the new local government funding system will have on each authority's council tax levels. [88339]

  Mr. Leslie
  Decisions on council tax are for local authorities to take, after consulting with their local electorate and taxpayers.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by how much each local authority will be over and under funded if his Department's new proposed funding changes for local government are introduced. [88340]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister no longer takes the view that a grant distribution formula can represent Government's view on what councils need to spend. The proposed new formula grant distribution system aims to reflect the relative cost of service provision. This year, for the first time, The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will also ensure that all authorities receive a grant increase of more than inflation. Since both formula spending shares and floors and ceilings are simply parts of the system which distributes a fixed pot of grant, all authorities will receive their correct share.

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) in the local government finance proposed settlement for 2003–04, for what reason Worcestershire is combined with Herefordshire in the assessment of area cost adjustment; [88445]
  956W
  (2) under the proposed local government finance settlement for 2003–04 on what basis he calculated that Dudley receive area cost adjustment. [88446]

  Mr. Leslie
  The area cost adjustment has been calculated on pre-1995 county boundaries and pre-1986 metropolitan county boundaries (though counties bordering London are divided into fringe and non-fringe areas). This means that all unitary authorities (including Herefordshire) and all metropolitan districts (including Dudley) receive the same area cost adjustment as the county or metropolitan county of which they were formerly a part. Not only does this help to reduce complexity, but it ensures that the area cost adjustment calculations are robust and stable from year to year. This is because New Earnings Survey sample sizes for individual unitary and metropolitan district authorities are relatively small.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to include an element of resource equalisation in local government settlements from 2004–05 onwards. [88790]

  Mr. Leslie
  Resource equalisation has been an element of the local government grant distribution system since the mid-1970's. It will remain so for the foreseeable future.

  Local Sport
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to make sport a statutory duty for local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [87649]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have no such plans. Local authorities are key providers of sport and recreation and play a central role in the delivery of sport in and for the community. It is through the continuous assessment and improvement of local services through processes such as the comprehensive performance assessment and statutory duties such as Best Value that we can safeguard and bring the highest standards to non-statutory services such as sport and recreation. The Local Government Act 2000 also gives authorities new powers to promote or improve the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of their area, including the provision of sport and recreational opportunities.

  Overcrowded Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1985 he has(a) received a report from a local housing authority and (b) directed a local housing authority to prepare and submit a report on the extent of overcrowding in their district, under section 334 of the Housing Act 1985; and what action was taken in each instance. [88262]
  957W
  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be only provided disproportionate cost. As far as the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware, the powers in section 334 of the Housing Act 1985 have not been used by local authorities or the Deputy Prime Minister in recent years.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 688W, on planning applications, what will happen to the planning applications not dealt with within 16 weeks from close of inquiry to decision. [86963]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister always aims to issue a decision as soon as possible. However, the target recognises that, due to the complex nature of some cases or the impact of unforeseen circumstances, a proportion of them will not be dealt with within the 16 week period following the close of the inquiry.

  Right to Buy Scheme
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many appeals against the valuation of a property being sold under the right to buy scheme were submitted in London in each year since 1992, broken down by local authority. [87989]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following table, compiled by the Valuation Office Agency, which carries out all determinations of appeals under the statutory Right to Buy scheme in England and Wales, shows determinations made in each London borough between 1 January 1992 and 30 November 2002.

  Right to Buy cases in London boroughs-Between 1 January 1992 and 30 November 2002

  Local authority/case type

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Barking and Dagenham

  LA

  56

  33

  22

  15

  31

  9

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  56

  33

  22

  15

  31

  9

  Barnet

  LA

  32

  20

  12

  9

  7

  6

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  32

  20

  12

  9

  7

  6

  Bexley

  LA

  18

  15

  11

  4

  13

  10

  RSL

  2

  3

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  20

  18

  13

  5

  13

  10

  Brent

  LA

  52

  37

  21

  16

  27

  33

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  52

  37

  21

  16

  27

  33

  Bromley

  LA

  24

  6

  4

  4

  1

  0

  RSL

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  24

  7

  4

  4

  1

  0

  Camden

  LA

  318

  168

  84

  65

  69

  124

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  Total

  318

  168

  84

  66

  69

  124

  City of London

  LA

  5

  7

  7

  10

  4

  2

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  5

  7

  7

  10

  4

  2

  958W

  Right to Buy cases in London boroughs-Between 1 January 1992 and 30 November 2002

  Local authority/case type

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Croydon

  LA

  12

  13

  6

  3

  4

  7

  RSL

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  15

  13

  6

  3

  4

  7

  Ealing

  LA

  96

  46

  22

  17

  25

  8

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Total

  96

  46

  22

  17

  25

  11

  Enfield

  LA

  31

  19

  26

  9

  15

  8

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  31

  19

  26

  9

  15

  8

  Greenwich

  LA

  178

  194

  111

  133

  118

  112

  RSL

  3

  3

  8

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  181

  197

  119

  133

  118

  112

  Hackney

  LA

  110

  63

  35

  31

  39

  55

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  110

  63

  35

  31

  39

  55

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  LA

  55

  30

  7

  17

  25

  34

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  55

  30

  7

  18

  25

  34

  Haringey

  LA

  45

  26

  15

  15

  19

  31

  RSL

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  45

  28

  15

  15

  19

  31

  Harrow

  LA

  11

  7

  3

  1

  1

  2

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  11

  7

  3

  1

  1

  2

  Havering

  LA

  31

  27

  12

  11

  10

  4

  RSL

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  32

  27

  12

  11

  10

  4

  Hillingdon

  LA

  55

  26

  8

  5

  7

  19

  RSL

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  55

  26

  9

  5

  7

  19

  Hounslow

  LA

  40

  15

  10

  11

  10

  8

  RSL

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Total

  42

  16

  10

  11

  10

  10

  Islington

  LA

  307

  181

  101

  65

  48

  82

  RSL

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Total

  308

  181

  101

  66

  49

  82

  Kensington and Chelsea

  LA

  32

  26

  15

  18

  12

  17

  RSL

  5

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  Total

  37

  26

  16

  21

  12

  17

  Kingston Upon Thames

  LA

  15

  4

  3

  1

  1

  3

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  15

  4

  3

  1

  1

  3

  Lambeth

  LA

  170

  69

  42

  52

  46

  143

  RSL

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  171

  71

  42

  52

  46

  143

  Lewisham

  LA

  63

  60

  26

  30

  21

  39

  RSL

  0

  7

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  63

  67

  30

  30

  21

  39

  959W

  Right to Buy cases in London boroughs-Between 1 January 1992 and 30 November 2002

  Local authority/case type

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Merton

  LA

  1

  2

  0

  3

  9

  8

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  1

  2

  0

  3

  9

  8

  Newham

  LA

  38

  37

  21

  22

  22

  30

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  38

  37

  21

  22

  22

  30

  Redbridge

  LA

  6

  10

  5

  8

  8

  10

  RSL

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  11

  10

  5

  8

  8

  10

  Richmond upon Thames

  LA

  8

  12

  8

  9

  4

  7

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  8

  12

  8

  9

  4

  7

  Southwark

  LA

  93

  91

  45

  29

  37

  43

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Total

  93

  91

  45

  29

  38

  43

  Sutton

  LA

  13

  11

  10

  5

  10

  3

  RSL

  0

  5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  13

  16

  11

  5

  10

  3

  Tower Hamlets

  LA

  61

  50

  16

  11

  21

  38

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  61

  50

  16

  11

  21

  38

  Waltham Forest

  LA

  33

  11

  14

  14

  7

  14

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  33

  11

  14

  14

  7

  15

  Wandsworth

  LA

  29

  18

  28

  29

  18

  29

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  29

  18

  28

  29

  18

  29

  Westminster

  LA

  35

  7

  6

  20

  17

  14

  RSL

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  36

  7

  6

  20

  17

  14

  Grant total

  LA

  2,073

  1,341

  756

  692

  706

  952

  RSL

  24

  24

  17

  7

  2

  6

  Total

  2,097

  1,365

  773

  699

  708

  958

  Local authority/case type

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  LA

  12

  35

  20

  22

  5

  260

  RSL

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  12

  36

  20

  22

  5

  261

  Barnet

  LA

  5

  16

  31

  62

  12

  212

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Total

  5

  16

  31

  63

  12

  213

  Bexley

  LA

  4

  3

  8

  6

  5

  97

  RSL

  1

  6

  3

  4

  1

  23

  Total

  5

  9

  11

  10

  6

  120

  Brent

  LA

  47

  79

  45

  35

  11

  403

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  47

  79

  45

  35

  12

  404

  960W

  Local authority/case type

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Bromley

  LA

  0

  4

  5

  8

  1

  57

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  0

  4

  5

  8

  1

  58

  Camden

  LA

  90

  112

  171

  102

  39

  1,342

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  91

  112

  171

  102

  39

  1,343

  City of London

  LA

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  38

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  38

  Croydon

  LA

  7

  9

  15

  12

  4

  92

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  Total

  7

  9

  15

  13

  4

  96

  Ealing

  LA

  19

  35

  55

  35

  7

  365

  RSL

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Total

  19

  36

  55

  35

  7

  369

  Enfield

  LA

  11

  23

  26

  28

  7

  203

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  11

  23

  26

  28

  7

  203

  Greenwich

  LA

  81

  104

  108

  103

  22

  1,264

  RSL

  0

  4

  1

  3

  0

  22

  Total

  81

  108

  109

  106

  22

  1,286

  Hackney

  LA

  41

  101

  213

  246

  74

  1,008

  RSL

  0

  4

  3

  16

  6

  29

  Total

  41

  105

  216

  262

  80

  1,037

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  LA

  60

  53

  53

  62

  14

  410

  RSL

  0

  3

  0

  1

  1

  6

  Total

  60

  56

  53

  63

  15

  416

  Haringey

  LA

  26

  33

  33

  49

  22

  314

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Total

  26

  33

  33

  49

  22

  316

  Harrow

  LA

  7

  5

  3

  6

  2

  48

  RSL

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  25

  Total

  7

  5

  4

  7

  2

  50

  Havering

  LA

  4

  9

  11

  25

  5

  149

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  4

  9

  11

  25

  5

  150

  Hillingdon

  LA

  12

  15

  22

  20

  3

  192

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  12

  15

  22

  20

  3

  193

  Hounslow

  LA

  9

  21

  10

  50

  15

  199

  RSL

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  7

  Total

  9

  21

  12

  50

  15

  206

  Islington

  LA

  127

  186

  124

  121

  33

  1,375

  RSL

  2

  0

  2

  6

  4

  17

  Total

  129

  186

  126

  127

  37

  1,392

  Kensington and Chelsea

  LA

  36

  54

  56

  55

  10

  331

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  Total

  36

  54

  56

  55

  10

  340

  Kingston Upon Thames

  LA

  6

  4

  5

  6

  3

  51

  RSL

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  6

  5

  5

  6

  3

  52

  961W

  Local authority/case type

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Lambeth

  LA

  152

  296

  196

  225

  44

  1,435

  RSL

  0

  6

  10

  24

  2

  45

  Total

  152

  302

  206

  249

  46

  1,480

  Lewisham

  LA

  60

  74

  109

  159

  47

  688

  RSL

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  12

  Total

  60

  74

  110

  159

  47

  700

  Merton

  LA

  11

  10

  21

  14

  3

  82

  RSL

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  11

  11

  21

  14

  3

  83

  Newham

  LA

  35

  33

  50

  50

  13

  351

  RSL

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  36

  33

  50

  50

  13

  352

  Redbridge

  LA

  15

  18

  20

  18

  6

  124

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Total

  15

  18

  20

  18

  6

  129

  Richmond upon Thames

  LA

  18

  46

  27

  13

  4

  156

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  18

  46

  27

  13

  4

  156

  Southwark

  LA

  76

  100

  104

  162

  21

  801

  RSL

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  5

  Total

  76

  100

  106

  164

  21

  806

  Sutton

  LA

  2

  6

  23

  19

  7

  109

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Total

  2

  6

  23

  19

  7

  115

  Tower Hamlets

  LA

  40

  51

  114

  136

  36

  574

  RSL

  0

  8

  14

  19

  3

  44

  Total

  40

  59

  128

  155

  39

  618

  Waltham Forest

  LA

  15

  43

  44

  46

  10

  251

  RSL

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  6

  Total

  16

  43

  45

  47

  12

  257

  Wandsworth

  LA

  36

  45

  45

  49

  4

  330

  RSL

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  36

  45

  46

  49

  4

  331

  Westminster

  LA

  29

  63

  36

  37

  6

  270

  RSL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  29

  63

  36

  37

  6

  271

  Grant total

  LA

  1,093

  1,687

  1,805

  1,981

  495

  13,581

  RSL

  5

  35

  41

  79

  20

  260

  Total

  1,098

  1,722

  1,846

  2,060

  515

  13,841

  Note:

  Appeals determined for local authority tenants are shown as 'LA'. Those for tenants of registered social landlords (for example, housing associations) exercising the preserved Right to Buy are shown as 'RSL'.

  Social Inclusion
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to encourage use of public procurement contracts to achieve greater social inclusion; and if he will make a statement. [88141]
  962W
  Mr. Leslie
  Contracts let by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are based on value for money, defined as the optimum combination of whole-life cost and quality (or fitness for purpose) to meet the user's requirement.

  Local authorities are independent and autonomous and responsible within law for making their own decision on procurement matters. It is for them to decide how far their procurement contracts should be used to achieve greater social inclusion. It remains the responsibility of individual local authorities to make their own judgement about the use of social considerations in procurement, consistent with domestic law, including the duty to achieve best value, and the EC legal framework.

  The European Commission has recently provided clarification on the possibilities that Community law offers public purchasers who wish to take account of relevant social considerations into public procurement procedures. This clarification takes the form of an Interpretative Communication that explains how social concerns may be taken into account at each separate stage of the contract award procedure.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working with the Local Government Association through the Local Government Procurement Forum to prepare guidance for local authorities on the EC Procurement Directives and how social considerations may be included in procurement exercises.

  Starter Home Initiative
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 711W, how many key workers there are in each of the groups; and how many key worker shortages there are in each group used in informing his Department of the numbers to give assistance to. [87940]

  Mr. McNulty
  When the first Starter Home Initiative allocations were made in 2001, the broad numbers of staff in London and the south-east in each of the key worker groups were:c250,000 health staff, excluding senior medical staff and management;
  c120,000 teachers; and
  c40,000 police officers and 18,000 police civilian staff.

  The Department of Health, Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office advised the now Office of the Deputy Prime Minister where the Starter Home Initiative funds might best be spent to address shortages. This helped to inform allocations to organisations that submitted bids for funding.

  Tenancy Deposit Scheme
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to consult on making the Tenancy Deposit Scheme compulsory. [88310]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently launched a consultation on options for the protection of tenancy moneys, including tenancy deposits. The prospects for legislation will be considered in the light of responses received to the consultation.

  Visually Impaired Children
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures are in place to ensure that families with visually impaired children have the same priority as other disabled children when allocating housing; what housing improvement schemes are available for poor parents with visually impaired children; and what proposals he has to widen the availability of these schemes. [87363]

  Mr. McNulty
  In England, housing authorities must ensure that their allocation scheme is framed so as to give reasonable preference to certain categories of persons. The categories are set out in s167 (2) of the Housing Act 1996 and include households consisting of or including someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds, and families with dependent children. Medical grounds will include a visual impairment where it is serious enough to constitute a disability and where a settled home is required to ensure that the particular needs of the visually impaired person are met. A young person with a visual impairment is also more likely to continue to be considered as a "dependent child" for a longer period.

  In England, a family with a visually impaired child has a mandatory right to apply for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) which is intended to help with any necessary adaptations to the home. The grant system is administered through local housing authorities who are required to consult with social services to assess the particular needs of the disabled child. The mandatory grant is subject to a maximum limit of £25,000 per application and subject to a means test.

  Under the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002, local authorities have been given additional wide ranging powers which can be used to provide additional assistance with housing adaptations outside the statutory limits of the mandatory DFG system. These new powers can be used at the discretion of the local authority, which would need to allocate resources from its own budgets for this purpose.

  Home Improvement Agencies (HIAs) enable vulnerable people to maintain their independence in their own home by helping people through the process of arranging home repairs, improvements or adaptations. Also included is the direct provision of repair and maintenance services, preventative initiatives and providing advice on accessing appropriate finance.

  In recognition of the important role HIAs play in supporting independent living, Government recently announced additional funding to assist HIAs to deliver housing and health objectives. In addition to the £8.5 million currently invested, ODPM are investing an extra £5.2 million in the sector, and the Department of Health is making £9.5 million available through local authorities over the next three years.

  Issues in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Wandsworth Development Plan
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the timetable is for Wandsworth borough council to deposit a new draft revised (second stage deposit) unitary development plan incorporating the recommendations of the Planning Inspectorate issued to the council on 6 March. [87113]

  Mr. McNulty
  It is expected that a report will be considered by the relevant Wandsworth borough council committee early in the new year, with a view to the deposit of modifications in spring 2003.

  West Midlands Regional Assembly
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which organisations he is consulting in Worcestershire as part of his soundings exercise on the possibility of holding a referendum on a West Midlands regional assembly. [88416]

  Mr. Leslie
  The soundings exercise that was launched by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 2 December 2002 invites views, information and evidence from people on the level of interest in each English region (outside London) in holding a referendum about establishing an elected regional assembly. Views are welcome from any person or organisation on this issue. The paper giving details about this exercise and inviting responses, along with a pro forma for responding, is available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website. Paper copies are also available.

  With regards to Worcestershire (as for all English regions outside London), the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has written to its principal local authorities, MPs and MEPs inviting views, information and evidence. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has written similarly to the following regional bodies in the West Midlands: the West Midlands Regional Assembly (regional chamber); the West Midlands local government association; TUC Midlands region; Institute of Directors West Midland Region; Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry; CBI West Midlands; West Midlands Constitutional Convention; and Sustainability West Midlands. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has, of course, written to the equivalent bodies in the other English regions outside London.

  I have placed a list of all organisations in England contacted about this soundings exercise in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Annual Reports (Production Costs)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost of production was of the(a) Community Fund's Annual Report, (b) Sport England Annual Report, (c) Heritage Lottery Fund and National Heritage Memorial Fund Annual Report and Accounts and (d) NESTA Annual Report, in each of the past three years; how many copies of each report were produced; and if she will make a statement. [86377]
  965W
  Dr. Howells
  The information requested for each organisation is set out as follows:

  £

  Number of copies

  1999–2000

  Community Fund

  39,144

  7,300

  Sport England

  36,251

  2,000

  Heritage Fund

  66,486

  5,000

  NESTA

  41,436

  3,000

  2000–01

  Community Fund

  86,686

  7,000

  Sport England

  35,732

  2,000

  Heritage Fund

  71,924

  5,000

  NESTA

  43,896

  4,500

  2001–02

  Community Fund

  71,362

  5,300

  Sport England

  25,671

  2,000

  Heritage Fund

  58,782

  5,000

  NESTA

  48,885

  5,000

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to which bodies her Department makes appointments; how many members there are(a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) businessmen, (ii) businessmen in SMEs and (iii) businessmen in micro-businesses. [87386]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Cabinet Office on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 607W.

  BBC
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will publish the revised version of the proposed changes to the BBC Agreement; and if she will make a statement. [87278]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The proposed amendments to the Agreement will be made available to the Standing Committee on the Communications Bill in time to assist the Committee's consideration of clause 193.

  Broadcasting Regulations
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which regulations govern the broadcasting of programming material by(a) digital satellite, (b) digital terrestrial, (c) digital cable and (d) broadband. [87488]

  Dr. Howells
  The regulations which govern the broadcasting of programming material by(a) digital satellite, (b) digital terrestrial, (c) digital cable and (d) broadband are set out in the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many departmental Christmas cards she and her Ministers intend to send in 966W
  2002; how much these cards will cost (a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if she will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card she has sent this year. [88110]

  Dr. Howells
  Ministers sent 1,120 of the 3,800 Christmas cards produced by my Department this year. The design and print costs totalled £1,985, and the majority of cards were sent by second class post.

  No assessment was made of the time taken to sign, address and place cards in envelopes. However, most cards were addressed using pre-printed labels.

  I am arranging for a copy of the card, which depicts a mural produced by the Crew Art Legacy Project at the Manchester Commonwealth Games, to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Licensing Reform
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the cost of the impact of the Licensing Bill on(a) churches, (b) village halls, (c) voluntary associations and (d) other non-profit-making bodies. [87411]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The Government anticipate that it will be simpler and less expensive for voluntary associations and other nonprofit-making bodies to stage entertainment under the new regime. The Regulatory Impact Assessment estimates that some organisations would save around £150 million over the first 10 years. Churches, of course, have been exempt from the requirement for a public entertainment licence for music outside Greater London. Any costs would depend on the licensable activities, if any, which are undertaken and their frequency.

  However, as I stated in the House of Commons on 16 December, Official Report, column 517, the Government have made a commitment to reconsider its position on the licensing of churches and will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions took place between her Department and religious authorities as part of the consultation on licensing reform. [87409]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The White Paper "Time for Reform", published in April 2000 was the subject of a full public consultation. It was sent directly to 231 organisations and over 650 organisations produced responses. We received eight responses from religious organisations, including one from the Churches Main Committee. None of these were concerned with the proposal to licence public entertainment in churches and other places of religious worship. Since then, officials of my Department have had discussions with officials of the General Synod of the Church of England about a possible mechanism to exempt churches from licensing controls.
  967W
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the additional costs which will be incurred by churches as a result of the provisions of the new Licensing Bill. [87451]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 18 December 2002]: In the Regulatory Impact Assessment, published with the Licensing Bill, it has been estimated that an initial application for a premises licence would cost between £100 and £500, and that there would be an annual charge of between £50 and £150. Any costs would depend on the licensable activities, if any, which are undertaken and their frequency.

  However, as I stated in the House of Commons on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 517, the Government have made a commitment to reconsider its position on the licensing of churches, and will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many engagements were undertaken outside London(a) by her or her predecessor and (b) by ministers in her Department in January (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [87359]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 608W.

  Postcodes
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what use her Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for(a) the collection and publication of data, (b) devising formulae for the distribution of grants and awards and (c) the delivery of services; and when such usages were last reviewed. [87743]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Department collects and publishes data which use post codes on:

  (i)awards made from National Lottery funds.

  (ii)the proportion of households living within a specified distance of a static library.

  This followed the introduction of national standards for public libraries in April 2001.

  These usages have not been reviewed.

  The Department's sole agency, the Royal Parks Agency, does not make use of postcode areas in collection and publication of data.

  (b),(c) The Department and the Royal Parks Agency do not use postcode areas in either devising formulae for the distribution of grants and awards or the delivery of services.

  Public House Licences
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has 968W
  made of the number of public house licence holders that will be required to undergo a Criminal Records Bureau check by regulations made under the Licensing Bill. [88239]

  Dr. Howells
  Schedule 8 to the Licensing Bill provides that under the transitional arrangements, holders of justices' licences authorising the sale of alcohol by retail under the current licensing regime will be able to apply for personal licences under the new regime, without undergoing a Criminal Record Bureau check. If such a licence holder has been convicted of any relevant offence or equivalent foreign offence under the Bill, they would, however, be required to submit a statement giving details of that offence with their application for a personal licence. Failure to provide such a statement would be an offence under the Bill.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [87691]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The Department publishes progress against all of its outstanding PSA targets in its departmental report and autumn performance report. The most recent departmental report was published in May 2002 (Cm 5423) and the autumn performance report in December 2002 (Cm 5699).

  Television Subtitling
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer given on 4 July,Official Report, column 514W, on television subtitling, whether the code produced by Ofcom relating to the provision of television services for deaf and visually impaired people will include specific guidance on the presentation of subtitles. [87705]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 18 December 2002]: The code relating to the provision of television services for the deaf and visually impaired, to be produced by Ofcom, will include guidance on the technical standards to be attained for subtitling. We would expect the code to include aspects of style and presentation, as the ITC code currently does.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to which bodies his Department makes appointments; how many members there are(a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) businessmen, (ii) businessmen in SMEs and (iii) businessmen in micro-businesses. [87388]
  969W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Phil Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Connexions Card will have an electronic purse to(a) manage payments from Education Maintenance Allowances paid by LEAs and (b) manage training allowances paid by the Learning and Skills Council. [87957]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are no plans for the Connexions Card to have an electronic purse for the purposes of managing payments from Education Maintenance Allowances or training allowances.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the Connexions Card is to be launched. [87958]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Connexions Card is now available to all 16 to 19-year-olds in England.

  From February 2003, there will be an extensive national launch programme of activities aimed at young people across England.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many personal advisors worked for the Connexions Service in(a) 2001–02 and (b)2002–03. [87959]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information in the table below shows the number of full time equivalent personal advisers who had worked for the Connexions Service in the last two years.

  Period

  Number of personal advisers (full time equivalents)

  Number of operational Connexions Partnerships

  2001–02

  2,175.9

  15

  2002–031

  5,958.9

  42

  1 Data available to end October 2002

  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 16 to 19-year-olds used their allowance for(a) travel costs, (b) books and equipment and (c) other living costs during the education maintenance allowance pilots; and what research has been undertaken to ascertain these figures. [87954]

  Margaret Hodge
  Independent evaluation of the education maintenance allowance scheme has been carried out by a consortium led by the Centre for Research in Social Policy. They have collected a great deal of data, including information on how young people spend their EMA, and this was included in the quantitative report on the first year of the scheme. The findings so far show that recipients of EMA are as likely as non-recipients to make a contribution to housekeeping costs, and more likely to pay towards the cost of transport, books and equipment for school. They 970W
  spent no more than-recipients on entertainment and were more likely to say that transport, books and equipment were their main item of expenditure.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he plans to change the criteria for qualification for free school meals; and if he will make a statement. [88270]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  During the passage of the Education Act 2002, the Secretary of State made it clear that she would protect the free school meals' entitlement of families who would otherwise lose this entitlement because they cease to be entitled to income support or income based jobseekers allowance and begin receiving child tax credits instead. The new system will be slightly more generous than the old system with around 75,000 more children from low income families eligible for free school meals from April 2003.

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many primary schools in the UK teach languages; how many secondary schools do not teach languages; which languages are taught in schools; what proposals he has to increase the range of languages available; what teaching there is in schools on non-European languages; and if he will make a statement. [87367]

  Mr. Miliband
  A survey conducted by Warwick university estimated that around 20 per cent. of primary schools currently provide some form of language teaching.

  Secondary schools are required to offer at least one of the working languages of the EU. When schools have met this requirement they are free to offer non-European languages.

  Ofsted is not aware of any secondary schools that have no provision for language teaching.

  We do not collect data on the number of languages taught in secondary schools. However, we are aware that overall around 20 languages are offered by 157 Specialist Language Colleges including Chinese, Japanese, Urdu and Gujerati.

  Our Languages Strategy which was published on 18 December, sets out how we intend to improve the country's capabilities in language skills.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he last attended a ministerial meeting with European Union Ministers for Education. [87008]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend has not yet attended a meeting of European Union Ministers for Education. I represented the Secretary of State at the most recent meeting of the EU Education Council which was held in Brussels on 12 November.

  Plant Hire
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the
  971W
  number of employees in the plant hire industry who have received educational and other benefits from the facilities provided by the Construction Industry Training Board. [87319]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 December 2002]: During 2002 approximately 5,000 employees of plant hire companies received educational and other benefits through the Construction Industry Training Board.

  Post-16 Funding
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has undertaken to ascertain the extent to which school sixth form and college access funds are used for(a) travel costs, (b) books and equipment and (c) other living costs. [87953]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills has commissioned a two-year study by the Institute of Employment Studies to evaluate the use and effectiveness of the learner support funds in further education institutions. The interim report was made available in April 2001 and can be accessed via the DfES website at: www.dfes.gov.uk (young people/further education funding support/report). Publication of the final report is expected in spring 2003.

  The interim research found that 81 per cent. of further education institutions use learner support funds to subsidise travel costs. Around 40 per cent. of the available funding is spent on transport services and residential provision.

  A total of 367,055 awards were made in 2000–01. The table shows the number of awards made against the three categories.

  Number of awards

  Transport

  83,714

  Books and equipment

  81,837

  Other(inc.living/general)

  37,474

  Postcodes
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what use his Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for(a) the collection and publication of data, (b) devising formulae for the distribution of grants and awards and (c) the delivery of services; and when such usages were last reviewed. [87746]

  Mr. Miliband
  Wherever possible, the Department and its agencies collect information on an on-going basis on the postcode of usual residence of individual learners and/or place of learning to facilitate the compilation of statistics on education and skills at various geographical levels—for example, local education authorities and coalfield areas. Some of these statistics are then used with others as a basis for funding allocations—for example, postcodes are used to obtain a measure of resident pupils, one factor in calculating Education Formula Spending Shares. The Department is fully committed to working closely with the Office for Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and others to produce better information for small areas. This will allow DfES and 972W
  other Government Departments to develop and evaluate locally targeted policies and interventions as well as helping to tackle Neighbourhood Renewal.

  Progress Files
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of secondary schools have used Progress Files for pupils aged 13 and over in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [87960]

  Mr. Miliband
  The proportion of secondary schools which have ordered Progress File materials for pupils aged 13 and over is approximately 25 per cent. in 2001–02 and 40 per cent. in 2002–03 academic years to date.

  School Funding
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria will be used to allocate the new fund to assist schools applying for specialist status which have encountered difficulties in raising funds. [87195]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department has not yet finalised the criteria for the allocation of the Partnership Fund. The criteria will be based around evidence that the school has made a real effort to raise sponsorship and that, although they have not been able to get the required level of private sector funding, the school has created other valuable links with businesses.

  The full criteria for the allocation of the funds will be set out in due course.

  School Transport
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will issue new guidelines to local education authorities on school transport contracts on overcrowding and use of seatbelts. [87402]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As my hon. Friend is aware, from 1 November 2001, seat-belts had to be fitted on all new minibuses, coaches and buses (apart from those specifically designed for urban use with standing passengers). There are no regulations governing the use of seat belts in buses. However, my Department's current guidance does refer to RoSPA's 1991 code of practice on school transport safety, and says that"LEAs should encourage contractors, drivers, parents, pupils and schools to observe the code, and especially its recommendation that seatbelts should be worn where fitted."

  The Department has not issued guidelines to local education authorities on overcrowding. The regulations that govern seating and standing on all buses are the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984, the Public Service Vehicles (Conditions of Fitness, Equipment, Use and Certification) Regulations 1981, as amended, and the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990. Enforcement of regulations relating to carrying capacity and safety of buses rests with the Police and the Vehicle Inspectorate. I am not aware of any prosecutions for overcrowding on services involving school transport.
  973W
  We have no immediate plans to issue further guidance to LEAs on school transport at this stage.

  Visually Impaired Children
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are in place to ensure that visually impaired children have access to adequate primary and secondary education; and what proposals he has to assist visually impaired children at school. [87362]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Responsibility for making suitable provision for children with special educational needs, including those with visual impairment, rests in the first instance with schools and local education authorities (LEAs). The nature and extent of provision is decided locally in the light of the circumstances and individual needs of each child. In making provision, schools and LEAs must have regard to the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, which provides practical guidance to schools and LEAs on their responsibilities and promotes consistency of approach.

  Since September 2002, LEAs and schools have had a duty to ensure that disabled pupils are not treated less favourably, without justification, than non-disabled pupils; and to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled pupils are not put at a substantial disadvantage to their non-disabled pupils. In England and Wales there is also a duty on LEAs and schools to plan strategically and make progress in increasing physical accessibility to schools' premises and to the curriculum. The DfES has issued guidance on the new duty, Accessible Schools: Planning to increase access to schools for disabled pupils.

  Substantial funding has been provided, and continues to be provided under the Schools Access initiative to improve access for disabled children—£70 million in 2002–03, increasing to £100 million for each of the next three years, 2003–06.

  In addition, in 2002–03 a total of £91 million was made available to LEAs and schools to support the needs of pupils with SEN and disabilities and vulnerable children from the DfES Standards Fund. The same level of funding will be available in 2003–04. The fund can be used for training, including training leading to mandatory qualification for teachers of pupils with visual impairment.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Accreditation
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department is doing to support the Government's policy on accreditation. [88092]

  Mr. Denham
  Under Sections 40 and 43 of the Police Reform Act 2002, it is now open to chief officers in all 43 police forces in England and Wales, and the British transport police, to set up a community safety accreditation scheme in their area. Individuals able to meet agreed high standards could then be accredited 974W
  with certain low level police powers to enable them to tackle anti-social behaviour and environmental problems in the local communities where they work.

  The setting up of such a scheme is entirely a matter for the chief officer concerned but a number are taking the necessary steps towards setting up a scheme in their area. In order to help them, and other interested parties, we shall shortly be putting some general accreditation guidance on the police reform website showing interested parties the kind of standards which will be necessary for accreditation.

  We shall continue to show support for accreditation schemes by offering advice and guidance, as required. Towards the end of next year we plan to issue a code of practice based on the good practice that has developed.

  Air Weapons
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a licensing scheme for the purchase of air weapons. [87283]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We are considering a range of options for dealing with the problem of air weapon misuse. I hope shortly to be in a position to put forward proposals.

  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will raise the age limit for the use of air weapons to 18 years. [87285]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We are considering a range of options for dealing with the problem of air weapon misuse including possible changes to existing age limits. I hope shortly to be in a position to put forward proposals.

  Children's Rights
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the report on the UK by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. [86141]

  Mr. Denham
  We are currently considering the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The Committee's recommendations are extremely wide-ranging, and relate to many aspects of Government policy. Lead Departments across Whitehall, together with the devolved Administrations, are considering how to take the Committee's comments into account in future work, and we will consider the Committee's recommendations carefully in developing our overarching strategy for children and young people.

  Community Support Officers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent each local authority has used powers under Section 33 of the Police Act 1966 to help fund new community support officers; and how many such officers are employed. [86915]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: There was no Police Act for England and Wales in 1966. Over £19 million was made available for the recruitment of more than 1,000 Community Support Officers (CSOs) in England and Wales during this financial year.

  975W
  Twenty seven police forces and authorities made bids for a share of this fund and we were able to offer some funding to all of them.

  We continue to work with police forces and authorities to develop their implementation plans and are encouraging them to discuss with potential funding partners, such as local authorities, how further CSOs might be funded in the future.

  At present there are 215 CSOs patrolling the streets of Westminster, Newham and Tower Hamlets. Lancashire Constabulary introduced 20 CSOs to their force area on 16 December.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 31 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. S. Pickup. [87657]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 18 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 4 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Nazia Butt. [87659]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, on 12 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 4 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Kahim Salam Mahmud. [87660]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, on 12 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. [87661]

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

  Crime and Antisocial Behaviour
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what funding the Government have made available for community support officers in Lancashire since the initiative began; [86944]

  (2) what steps he is taking to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour in Morecambe. [86945]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government is committed to tackling crime and anti- social behaviour. Morecambe, as part of the Lancaster Crime and Disorder Partnership, will benefit from the schemes designed to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour throughout the area. Morecambe has received £16,000 from the Safer Communities Initiative to fund an alleygating scheme in 976W
  a crime hotspot to reduce access to the rears of both residential and commercial properties. The Small Retailers Scheme has provided £7,541 to provide such items as locks, grills and to improve lighting for 30 shops in the Morecambe area.

  In August 2002 a street warden scheme providing 10 wardens was introduced to help tackle environmental and physical problems in the area, vehicle crime, anti-social behaviour and juvenile nuisance.

  Lancashire Constabulary has made a successful bid for £946,477 to employ 72 community support officers by 31 March 2003. The posting of Community Safety Officers within Lancashire will be an operational matter for the Chief Constable to decide.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made in Chorley in the last 12 months; and which custody suites have been used. [87055]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the number of arrests for notifiable offences is collected centrally at police force area level only. Available information shows that in 2001–02 (latest available) there were 41,715 arrests for notifiable offences within the Lancashire police force area.

  According to Lancashire constabulary records, 2,848 persons were arrested in the Chorley borough of South Ribble, Lancashire in the year ending July 2002. Of these 88 per cent. were lodged at Leyland custody suite and 12 per cent. were lodged at Skelmersdale custody suite.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour in Chorley; [87028]

  (2) what Government funding has been made available for community support officers in Chorley; and how many officers it has provided. [87054]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government is taking a number of steps to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour in all areas of the country. Lancashire is one of the forces involved in the street crime initiative. Other initiatives such as safer communities and the crime reduction programme have also made an important contribution.

  The Police Reform Act 2002 contains a number of measures to address crime and anti-social behaviour, including changes to improve the effectiveness of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and the creation of Community Support Officers (CSOs).

  Lancashire Constabulary have made a successful bid for £946,477 to employ 72 community support officers by 31 March 2003.

  In relation to the number of these CSOs who may work within Chorley, the posting of CSOs within Lancashire is an operational matter for the Chief Constable.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported crimes there were in the Chorley council area in the last three years, broken down by ward. [87053]
  977W
  Mr. Denham
  Numbers of crimes reported to the police are not collected centrally. Statistics of crimes recorded by the police in 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 for six key offence groups have been collected for the Chorley Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP), and have been published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletins (HOSBs) 'Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to March 2001' (HOSB 12/01) and 'Crime in England and Wales, 2001–02' (HOSB 07/02). The figures are given in the following table. Numbers of offences by ward are not collected centrally.

  Numbers of key offences in chorley CDRP, years ending March 2000, 2001 and 2002

  Offence

  Year end March 2000

  Year end March 2001

  Year end March 2002

  Violence against the person

  551

  581

  646

  Sexual offences

  38

  47

  49

  Robbery

  27

  32

  64

  Burglary in a dwelling

  526

  492

  780

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  464

  414

  413

  Theft from a vehicle

  700

  837

  872

  It should be noted that the Lancashire constabulary adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard in August 2000, ahead of its national implementation in April 2002. The effect of the standard will be to increase the number of crimes counted, and so the figures given in the table will not be directly comparable between years.

  Crime Figures (Lancaster)
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported crimes there were in the Lancaster city council area in 2001, broken down by ward. [86981]

  Mr. Denham
  Numbers of crimes reported to the police are not collected centrally. Statistics of crimes recorded by the police in 2001–02 for six key offence groups have been collected for the Lancaster Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP), and have been published in 'Crime in England and Wales 2001/02' (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 7/02). The figures are given in the following table. Numbers of offences by ward are not collected centrally.

  Numbers of key offences in Lancaster CDRP, year ending March 2002

  Number

  Violence against the person

  1,620

  Sexual offences

  91

  Robbery

  96

  Burglary in a dwelling

  853

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  368

  Theft from a vehicle

  1,212

  It should be noted that the Lancashire Constabulary adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard in August 2000, ahead of its national implementation in April 2002. The effect of the standard will be to increase the number of crimes counted.

  Crime Reduction Fund
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each initiative under the Crime Reduction Fund, indicating(a) the amount budgeted for each initiative and in total in 2001–02 and (b) the total expended for each initiative and in total in 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [84297]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The total provision for the Crime Reduction Programme (CRP) in 2001–02 was £189 million (my previous answer to the hon. Member included also the amounts needed to complete the Crime Reduction Programme in 2002–03). Expenditure on the programme in 2001–02, totalled £149 million (with £37 million of the £40 million shortfall attributable to implementation of the Close Circuit Television initiative). In 2002–03, the total provision for the CRP is £111 million which includes the £40 million shortfall from 2001–02.

  The information covering project grant evaluation and running costs on the CRP in 2001–02 is given in the table.

  £000

  Delegated for provision for 2001–021

  Actual expenditure for 2001–02

  Reduced Burglary

  18,491

  18,462

  Locks for the over-60s

  3,000

  2,796

  Summer Schemes

  1,680

  2,058

  Prostitution—What Works

  1,028

  895

  Targeted Policing

  18,606

  15,482

  'On Track'2

  0

  2,205

  Innovation Fund3

  0

  0

  Vehicle Crime Publicity

  0

  0

  Treatment of Offenders

  8,175

  6,134

  Drug Arrest Referrals

  10,521

  9,930

  Schools Intervention

  5,405

  4,483

  Violence Against Women

  7,092

  5,916

  Vehicle Crime

  2,610

  861

  Youth Inclusion

  2,750

  2,750

  Sentencing Practices

  3,155

  1,914

  Neighbourhood Wardens

  3,000

  2,867

  Design Against Crime

  1,052

  767

  Toolkits

  400

  403

  Arson Control Forum

  0

  0

  Offenders Index

  0

  0

  Suzy Lamplugh Trust

  295

  196

  Rape Crisis Federation

  406

  296

  CCTV Initiative4

  101,308

  70,523

  Total5,6

  188,974

  148,938

  1 Shows the amounts delegated to these initiatives in 2001–02. The figures for 2001–02 also take into account the effects of the Spending Review 2000 Settlement.

  2 Balance of funding transferred to the Department for Education and Skills for completion of programme.

  3 Funding reallocated to other projects

  4 Provision comes from the Capital Modernisation Fund. Includes £4.6 million for CCTV in police vehicles. Agreed end year flexibility of £37 million on the CCTV initiative in 2001–02 to be carried forward into 2002–03.

  5 The total figure excludes central and regional programme support costs, which are not allocated to particular initiatives.

  6 The provision for 2001–02 given in my previous reply to the hon. Member was £260 million, which also included the funding needed to roll out the rest of the CRP in 2002–03. The outturn for 2001–02 at £149 million and provision for 2002–03 at £111 million total £260 million.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police force
  979W
  in each year since 1997, (a) the number of offences recorded broken down by major category, (b) the number and proportion of those offences that were cleared up, (c) the number of persons prosecuted for offences and (d) the number and proportion of such persons convicted of such offence. [86853]

  Mr. Denham
  The figures requested on recorded crimes and detections for the years up to 2000–01 are available in Chapter 2 of successive editions of the publication 'Criminal Statistics England and Wales', which are available in the Library. The 2001–02 figures are available in tables 7.02 and 8.03 of 'Crime in England and Wales 2001–02' (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 7/02), which is also available in the Library.

  It should be noted that there was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which increased the coverage of offences, and also placed a greater emphasis on counting crimes in terms of the number of victims. Recorded crime and detection data before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.

  Recorded crime: number of detections by offence group and police force area and region 2001–02

  Police force area and region

  Total

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage

  Drug offences

  Other

  Cleveland

  14,723

  2,269

  364

  231

  1,836

  6,324

  865

  1,281

  1,095

  458

  Durham

  16,396

  5,066

  200

  99

  1,532

  4,587

  972

  1,982

  1,270

  688

  Northumbria

  43,768

  11,587

  518

  442

  3,336

  13,702

  2,606

  5,161

  4,761

  1,655

  North East Region

  74,887

  18,922

  1,082

  772

  6,704

  24,613

  4,443

  8,424

  7,126

  2,801

  Cheshire

  18,157

  4,684

  308

  152

  1,700

  5,687

  1,128

  1,989

  1,570

  939

  Cumbria

  12,115

  4,092

  152

  61

  723

  3,506

  687

  1,641

  910

  343

  Greater Manchester

  79,552

  27,801

  1,415

  1,557

  5,595

  21,136

  4,611

  9,703

  4,556

  3,178

  Lancashire

  35,948

  9,887

  508

  388

  3,616

  10,585

  2,214

  4,151

  3,117

  1,482

  Merseyside

  35,947

  10,198

  560

  585

  3,029

  11,171

  1,485

  3,298

  4,179

  1,442

  North West Region

  181,719

  56,662

  2,943

  2,743

  14,663

  52,085

  10,125

  20,782

  14,332

  7,384

  Humberside

  23,306

  6,224

  301

  201

  2,109

  8,335

  1,868

  2,464

  1,292

  512

  North Yorkshire

  15,344

  4,373

  233

  84

  1,065

  4,773

  1,334

  1,586

  1,372

  524

  South Yorkshire

  31,597

  6,698

  412

  463

  3,328

  10,559

  2,426

  2,920

  3,359

  1,432

  West Yorkshire

  57,694

  14,294

  968

  1,152

  8,099

  18,041

  3,124

  5,753

  4,218

  2,045

  Yorkshire and the Humber Region

  127,941

  31,589

  1,914

  1,900

  14,601

  41,708

  8,752

  12,723

  10,241

  4,513

  Derbyshire

  22,204

  6,920

  395

  250

  2,337

  6,180

  1,397

  2,439

  1,413

  873

  Leicestershire

  25,099

  6,941

  321

  241

  1,831

  7,798

  2,465

  2,745

  1,569

  1,188

  Lincolnshire

  13,588

  3,549

  260

  81

  1,242

  4,323

  907

  1,674

  1,067

  485

  Northamptonshire

  18,878

  4,955

  232

  280

  1,418

  6,706

  1,543

  2221

  953

  570

  Nottinghamshire

  28,048

  8,110

  454

  446

  2,684

  9,062

  1,376

  2,794

  1,889

  1,233

  East Midlands Region

  107,817

  30,475

  1,662

  1,298

  9,512

  34,069

  7,688

  11,873

  6,891

  4,349

  Staffordshire

  27,754

  10,471

  413

  216

  2,022

  6,937

  1,391

  3,132

  2,066

  1,106

  Warwickshire

  10,585

  3,093

  111

  110

  1,180

  3,367

  696

  1,102

  628

  298

  West Mercia

  30,011

  10,662

  408

  183

  1,908

  8,018

  2,292

  3,424

  2,114

  1,002

  West Midlands

  107,456

  37,092

  1,586

  2,766

  9,330

  27,482

  7,639

  9,380

  7,419

  4,762

  West Midlands Region

  175,806

  61,318

  2,518

  3,275

  14,440

  45,804

  12,018

  17,038

  12,227

  7,168

  Bedfordshire

  12,890

  3,556

  140

  161

  879

  4,607

  821

  1,359

  954

  413

  Cambridgeshire

  15,625

  5,349

  279

  146

  1,508

  4,370

  834

  1,744

  780

  615

  Essex

  29,567

  9,391

  445

  227

  1,911

  8,996

  1,859

  3,857

  2,109

  772

  Hertfordshire

  16,362

  3,761

  258

  214

  1,210

  6,015

  1,307

  1,766

  1,343

  488

  Norfolk

  14,720

  4,259

  239

  97

  1,027

  4,433

  1,248

  1,903

  1,161

  353

  Suffolk

  16,426

  5,693

  234

  117

  836

  4,398

  1,066

  2,255

  1,219

  608

  East of England Region

  105,590

  32,009

  1,595

  962

  7,371

  32,819

  7,135

  12,884

  7,566

  3,249

  London, City of

  3,414

  357

  18

  8

  141

  1,294

  891

  114

  444

  147

  Metropolitan Police

  148,827

  41,304

  3,201

  6,042

  12,046

  38,672

  8,526

  12,255

  22,075

  4,706

  London Region

  152,241

  41,661

  3,219

  6,050

  12,187

  39,966

  9,417

  12,369

  22,519

  4,853

  Hampshire

  40,052

  12,607

  874

  262

  2,622

  11,087

  2,765

  4,906

  3,370

  1,559

  Kent

  33,903

  8,690

  588

  269

  2,189

  11,062

  2,087

  4,790

  2,946

  1,282

  Surrey

  15,455

  4,677

  229

  167

  935

  3,824

  1,496

  1,863

  1,804

  460

  980W
  There was a change in the counting rules for detections on 1 April 1999, in order to tighten up what could be counted as a detection. Figures for detections before and after this date will therefore not be directly comparable.

  Some police forces adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard in advance of its national implementation in April 2002, and this will also have an effect on the numbers of offences recorded and detection rates.

  The requested information on the number of defendants proceeded against, and the number and proportion found guilty, by offence group for notifiable offences by police force area for the years 1997 to 2001, has been placed in the Library. The proportion of defendants is based on a comparison between the number prosecuted and the number convicted. Some convictions will be in a different year to the initial prosecution in the magistrates court, which account for the figures greater than 100 per cent. given in the relevant table.

  It should be noted that as the recorded crime and detection data relate to offences, and that the court data relate to offenders, they are not directly comparable.
  981W

  Recorded crime: number of detections by offence group and police force area and region 2001–02

  Police force area and region

  Total

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage

  Drug offences

  Other

  Sussex

  34,428

  12,577

  482

  338

  1,864

  9,127

  2,064

  4,047

  2,500

  1,429

  Thames Valley

  48,196

  11,638

  447

  749

  4,705

  16,634

  4,123

  4,658

  3,985

  1,257

  South East Region

  172,034

  50,189

  2,620

  1,785

  12,315

  51,734

  12,535

  20,264

  14,605

  5,987

  Avon and Somerset

  25,632

  5,131

  341

  510

  3,254

  9,044

  2,639

  2,362

  1,775

  576

  Devon and Cornwall

  31,963

  9,270

  572

  160

  2,033

  8,516

  2,896

  3,566

  3,940

  1,010

  Dorset

  14,567

  3,545

  214

  64

  1,185

  3,958

  2,239

  1,655

  1,323

  384

  Gloucestershire

  15,110

  3,668

  166

  130

  1,509

  4,848

  1,456

  1,590

  1,209

  534

  Wiltshire

  11,745

  3,221

  190

  91

  860

  3,579

  985

  1,376

  1,089

  354

  South West Region

  99,017

  24,835

  1,483

  955

  8,841

  29,945

  10,215

  10,549

  9,336

  2858

  Dyfed Powys

  15,393

  5,276

  268

  21

  771

  2973

  1,057

  1,855

  2,385

  787

  Gwent

  26,011

  8,355

  398

  124

  2,168

  7,834

  1,594

  3,054

  1,730

  754

  North Wales

  14,934

  4,874

  241

  65

  914

  4,238

  941

  1,788

  1,321

  552

  South Wales

  38,006

  11,910

  436

  249

  2,587

  10,720

  2,497

  4,440

  3,869

  1,298

  Wales

  94,344

  30,415

  1,343

  459

  6,440

  25,765

  6,089

  11,137

  9,305

  3,391

  England and Wales

  1,291,396

  378,075

  20,379

  20,199

  107,074

  378,508

  88,417

  138,043

  114,148

  46,553

  Number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts for notifiable offences by police force area England and Wales 19971

  Proceeded against

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Burglary

  Robbery

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage

  Drug offences

  Other offences

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  3,517

  250

  1,134

  195

  4,336

  630

  1,311

  811

  1,075

  13,259

  Bedfordshire

  1,427

  65

  439

  130

  1,708

  280

  537

  456

  433

  5,475

  Cambridgeshire

  1,890

  77

  674

  80

  1,779

  363

  700

  405

  629

  6,597

  Cheshire

  3,248

  143

  847

  158

  3,180

  543

  1,021

  985

  936

  11,061

  Cleveland

  2,127

  57

  1,175

  134

  3,193

  326

  765

  364

  700

  8,841

  Cumbria

  2,397

  72

  562

  36

  1,984

  423

  795

  538

  404

  7,211

  Derbyshire

  3,353

  209

  888

  80

  2,604

  538

  1,101

  506

  1,158

  10,437

  Devon and Cornwall

  4,346

  170

  1,091

  101

  4,026

  787

  1,427

  1,454

  1,135

  14,537

  Dorset

  1,156

  107-

  438

  69

  1,770

  521

  558

  347

  422

  5,388

  Durham

  2,457

  61

  795

  72

  2,013

  330

  749

  366

  659

  7,502

  Essex

  3,996

  226

  995

  137

  4,307

  842

  1,396

  1,134

  1,392

  14,425

  Gloucestershire

  1,347

  47

  472

  73

  1,581

  265

  510

  323

  582

  5,200

  Greater Manchester

  9,302

  522

  2,939

  876

  11,799

  1,530

  2,991

  2,193

  3,203

  35,355

  Hampshire

  5,044

  240

  1,290

  181

  5,543

  1,176

  1,877

  1,309

  1,951

  18,611

  Hertfordshire

  1,883

  103

  403

  110

  1,843

  376

  655

  549

  560

  6,482

  Humberside

  2,968

  91

  1,053

  105

  3,305

  469

  948

  611

  780

  10,330

  Kent

  3,260

  126

  1,031

  121

  4,704

  514

  1,448

  1,300

  853

  13,357

  Lancashire

  6,910

  268

  2,152

  264

  6,952

  1,036

  1,843

  1,726

  1,731

  22,882

  Leicestershire

  3,387

  168

  945

  264

  2,914

  631

  1,036

  650

  984

  10,979

  Lincolnshire

  2,194

  97

  672

  39

  2,115

  412

  729

  693

  579

  7,530

  London, City of

  212

  9

  35

  8

  414

  235

  51

  166

  141

  1,271

  Merseyside

  4,681

  150

  1,384

  259

  6,611

  886

  1,219

  2,311

  1,571

  19,072

  Metropolitan police

  21,598

  1,401

  5,512

  2,930

  24,955

  5,135

  6,051

  9,253

  6,645

  83,480

  Norfolk

  2,287

  180

  447

  41

  1,788

  424

  829

  695

  385

  7,076

  Northamptonshire

  1,773

  54

  564

  82

  1,748

  309

  767

  229

  411

  5,937

  Northumbria

  6,045

  263

  2,018

  394

  6,405

  863

  1,872

  1,192

  2,090

  21,142

  North Yorkshire

  2,630

  107

  624

  81

  2,272

  460

  736

  605

  692

  8,207

  Nottinghamshire

  4,788

  254

  1,374

  225

  4,332

  699

  1,425

  797

  1,179

  15,073

  South Yorkshire

  3,970

  156

  1,318

  241

  4,973

  592

  1,578

  1,339

  1,065

  15,232

  Staffordshire

  3,763

  207

  1,054

  132

  3,205

  623

  1,570

  903

  926

  12,383

  Suffolk

  1,752

  68

  516

  74

  1,633

  602

  685

  535

  484

  6,349

  Surrey

  1,493

  51

  318

  84

  1,398

  279

  544

  419

  469

  5,055

  Sussex

  3,239

  124

  961

  189

  4,013

  707

  1,078

  1,207

  927

  12,445

  Thames Valley

  3,934

  180

  1,181

  278

  4,387

  751

  1,498

  1,353

  1,339

  14,901

  Warwickshire

  1,121

  51

  447

  65

  1,244

  225

  400

  229

  522

  4,304

  West Mercia

  2,951

  115

  922

  101

  2,592

  524

  923

  732

  1,058

  9,918

  West Midlands

  8,928

  528

  3,502

  1,151

  10,008

  1,607

  2,902

  2,058

  3,560

  34,244

  West Yorkshire

  7,508

  479

  3,467

  673

  9,367

  1,511

  2,668

  3,721

  2,365

  31,759

  Wiltshire

  1,222

  80

  308

  66

  1,121

  260

  467

  333

  261

  4,118

  Dyfed Powys

  2,483

  78

  575

  38

  1,457

  324

  593

  757

  815

  7,120

  Gwent

  3,413

  92

  769

  94

  2,121

  406

  1,135

  645

  777

  9,452

  North Wales

  2,665

  137

  571

  44

  2,022

  413

  909

  591

  754

  8,106

  South Wales

  6,622

  201

  1,668

  306

  5,776

  890

  2,444

  1,431

  1,777

  21,115

  England and Wales

  165,287

  8,064

  49,530

  10,781

  175,498

  30,717

  54,741

  48,221

  50,379

  593,218

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  982W

  Criminal Offences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences were brought to justice in each of the Criminal Justice System areas in the last three years. [83676]

  Offences brought to justice 1 by police force area: 2001–02, 2000–01 and 1999–2000––Absolute and percentage changes from 1999–2000

  Change 2000–01 to 2001–02

  Change 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  OBTJ 2001–022

  OBTJ 2000–01

  OBTJ 1999–2000

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  28,083

  27,463

  28,487

  620

  2.3

  -404

  -1.4

  Bedfordshire

  11,297

  10,897

  10,244

  400

  3.7

  1,053

  10.3

  Cambridgeshire

  10,783

  11,465

  13,503

  -682

  -5.9

  -2,720

  -20.1

  Cheshire

  15,211

  17,186

  18,505

  -1,975

  -11.5

  -3,294

  -17.8

  Cleveland

  14,603

  14,546

  15,427

  57

  0.4

  -824

  -5.3

  Cumbria

  9,985

  9,779

  12,255

  206

  2.1

  -2,270

  -18.5

  Derbyshire

  17,574

  16,425

  17,226

  1,149

  7.0

  348

  2.0

  Devon and Cornwall

  25,640

  25,585

  26,966

  55

  0.2

  -1,326

  -4.9

  Dorset

  11,756

  10,719

  12,031

  1,037

  9.7

  -275

  -2.3

  Durham

  13,723

  12,900

  12,869

  823

  6.4

  854

  6.6

  Dyfed Powys

  11,010

  10,682

  13,064

  328

  3.1

  -2,054

  -15.7

  Essex

  21,912

  20,281

  22,459

  1,631

  8.0

  -547

  -2.4

  Gloucestershire

  12,920

  13,033

  13,461

  -113

  -0.9

  -541

  -4.0

  Greater Manchester

  57,501

  68,546

  72,821

  -11,045

  -16.1

  -15,320

  -21.0

  Gwent

  16,892

  16,902

  18,899

  -10

  -0.1

  -2,007

  -10.6

  Hampshire

  31,848

  32,254

  35,655

  -406

  -1.3

  -3,807

  -10.7

  Hertfordshire

  13,573

  13,488

  13,856

  85

  0.6

  -283

  -2.0

  Humberside

  17,859

  18,847

  20,120

  -988

  -5.2

  -2,261

  -11.2

  Kent

  24,466

  27,833

  28,600

  -3,367

  -12.1

  -4,134

  -14.5

  Lancashire

  30,650

  29,666

  32,366

  984

  3.3

  -1,716

  -5.3

  Leicestershire

  19,580

  18,157

  20,177

  1,423

  7.8

  -597

  -3.0

  Lincolnshire

  13,125

  10,256

  10,488

  2,869

  28.0

  2,637

  25.1

  Merseyside

  30,613

  32,321

  30,699

  -1,708

  -5.3

  -86

  -0.3

  Met. Area of London3

  123,665

  121,765

  141,276

  1,900

  1.6

  -17,611

  -12.5

  Norfolk

  12,621

  12,897

  16,340

  -276

  -2.1

  -3,719

  -22.8

  North Wales

  13,226

  12,551

  13,960

  675

  5.4

  -734

  -5.3

  North Yorkshire

  12,339

  12,300

  14,380

  39

  0.3

  -2,041

  -14.2

  Northamptonshire

  13,204

  13,940

  13,963

  -736

  -5.3

  -759

  -5.4

  Northumbria

  41,514

  40,128

  43,952

  1,386

  3.5

  -2,438

  -5.5

  Nottinghamshire

  24,569

  25,971

  26,723

  -1,402

  -5.4

  -2,154

  -8.1

  South Wales

  30,977

  28,792

  33,856

  2,185

  7.6

  -2,879

  -8.5

  South Yorkshire

  24,383

  25,812

  27,685

  -1,429

  -5.5

  -3,302

  -11.9

  Staffordshire4

  21,197

  22,640

  20,603

  -1,443

  -6.4

  594

  2.9

  Suffolk

  12,034

  11,768

  11,808

  266

  2.3

  226

  1.9

  Surrey

  12,267

  11,004

  12,020

  1,263

  11.5

  247

  2.1

  Sussex

  22,724

  20,256

  20,276

  2,468

  12.2

  2,448

  12.1

  Thames Valley

  31,309

  32,137

  29,694

  -828

  -2.6

  1,615

  5.4

  Warwickshire

  8,092

  7,057

  7,709

  1,035

  14.7

  383

  5.0

  West Mercia

  22,444

  20,478

  21,587

  1,966

  9.6

  857

  4.0

  West Midlands

  79,707

  72,001

  74,971

  7,706

  10.7

  4,736

  6.3

  West Yorkshire

  46,928

  53,033

  61,149

  -6,105

  -11.5

  -14,221

  -23.3

  Wiltshire

  10,851

  9,987

  11,625

  864

  8.6

  -774

  -6.7

  England and Wales

  1,024,654

  1,023,748

  1,103,755

  906

  0.1

  -79,102

  -7.2

  Comprised of:

  TICs

  91,084

  88,657

  97,640

  2,427

  2.7

  -6,557

  -6.7

  Cautions

  228,691

  228,814

  249,486

  -123

  -0.1

  -20,795

  -8.3

  Convictions

  704,879

  706,277

  756,629

  -1,398

  -0.2

  -51,750

  -6.8

  1 Offences brought to justice include TIC's, cautions and convictions for notifiable offences

  2 2002 Q1 figures are provisional (including estimates of shortfalls) and are subject to change. Hence 2001–02 figures are also provisional.

  3 Metropolitan area of London includes City of London.

  4 Staffordshire supplied only four weeks data from magistrates courts in 2000. Hence both 1999–2000 and 2000–01 figures include estimates of shortfalls.

  Crown Court Juries
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effect of interference with juries on the outcome of prosecutions in the Crown court in the last five years. [82004]
  984W
  Mr. Blunkett
  The requested information is available for all areas for 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02, although the figures for 2001–02 are, at this stage, provisional. The information is contained in the table.

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: The possibility of jury interference has always been a matter of concern, particularly but by no means exclusively, in the context of trials relating to organised crime. There are several important legal measures already in force, designed to deal with jury interference.
  985W
  The Crown Prosecution Service does not maintain records of the number of cases in which jury interference takes place, but in the last five years there have been instances of actual or feared jury interference that have resulted both in pre-trial arrangements whereby jury protection is put in place and trials which have been terminated before a jury has been able to reach a verdict. There have also been instances when jury interference has come to light after the jury's verdict has been returned.

  The Criminal Justice Bill now before Parliament makes provision for the trial to be conducted without a jury either, on the application of the prosecution where there is a danger of jury tampering or where the judge discharges the jury because of jury tampering. The Government take the view that these measures will be a further strong and effective disincentive to jury tampering.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy is on funding research into the prevalence of(a) child abuse in the home and (b) domestic violence that breaks down results by (i) family configuration and/or (ii) marital status. [86541]

  Hilary Benn
  The Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) conducts a wide range of social research, development, statistical economics and modelling work, all of which build up the evidence base, produce national statistics and support practical delivery of the Home Office's targets in all seven Home Office aims.

  Priorities for R&D are considered as part of a three year rolling business plan built into the overall Home Office planning process and are based on the resource allocations agreed as part of the spending review. The need for research into the prevalence of these two types of violence will continue to be assessed within the context of overall R&D priorities for the department but both will stay high on the agenda due to their seriousness.

  Examining Officers' Powers
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to enable an examining officer to request from the owner of a ship or aircraft specified information even if that information has also been required by immigration officers; and if he will make a statement; [87501]

  (2) what plans he has to improve accommodation for special branch officers at airports and ports, and to provide sufficient space to enable persons awaiting interview to sit and be interviewed in private; and if he will make a statement; [87500]

  (3) what plans he has (a) to introduce induction and training for special advocates under the Terrorism Act
  986W
  2000 and (b) to ensure special advocates receive properly prepared instructions; and if he will make a statement; [87495]

  (4) what plans he has (a) to improve co-ordination between police forces providing special branch services at ports and airports and (b) to introduce a unified port and borders police force; and if he will make a statement; [87505]

  (5) what plans he has to ensure that transport operators improve the accuracy of the manifesto of passengers they carry into the UK; and if he will make a statement; [87502]

  (6) what plans he has to propose amendments to the Terrorism Act 2000 to make it a specific offence to be or to have been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [87499]

  Mr. Denham
  The issues raised by my hon. Friend are among the comments and recommendations made by the noble Lord Carlile of Berriew QC in his independent report on the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000, which was laid before both Houses of Parliament on 26 November.

  I will be giving my full consideration to all of these proposals and I will be responding to Lord Carlile on the issues raised in the new year. I will of course report my response to the House.

  Immigration
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many calls were received by the immigration reporting line; how many prosecutions resulted; and what the cost was of the service during the last 12 months for which figures are available. [87996]

  Beverley Hughes
  The trial of the confidential hotline ran from May to July 2002. A full evaluation of this trial has now taken place and following consultation recommendations are about to be put to Home Office Ministers. I am therefore unable to give further details at this time.

  Once Ministers have had the opportunity to review the findings I will write again to the hon. Member.

  Local Authority Finance
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was granted from each source of support within his Department to(a) Westminster City Council and (b) the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, outside the revenue support grant settlement, in each year since 1997. [85827]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is given in the table. The grants included are those paid solely to the councils except in the case of Drug Action Teams, the Crime Reduction Programme and the Partnership Development Fund. In those cases the council is a member of a partnership and funding is allocated to one ormore of the partners, for the benefit of the partnership as a whole.
  987W

  £

  Grant paid and year

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Westminster

  1997–98

  Grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966

  739,615

  1,363,059

  Make A Difference

  55,000

  0

  1998–99

  Grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 19661

  758,845

  1,398,498

  Make A Difference

  30,000

  0

  Youth Justice Pilots

  11,250

  17,000

  1999–2000

  Crime Reduction Programme and Partnership Development Fund

  176,582

  2384,149

  Make A Difference

  20,000

  0

  Youth Justice Pilots

  38,930

  53,500

  Drug Action Teams:

  Development Grant

  35,782

  0

  Adult and Family Asylum Seekers

  7,790,560

  10,192,480

  2000–01

  Drug Action Teams:

  Development Grant

  35,782

  37,484

  Communities Against Drugs

  0

  0

  Crime Reduction Programme and Partnership Development Fund

  177,000

  3*384,144

  Adult and Family Asylum Seekers and Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children

  12,960,608

  415,629,840

  Referral Order Pilots

  62,000

  62,000

  2001–02

  Drug Action Teams:

  Development Grant

  35,260

  37,484

  Communities Against Drugs

  5,656

  50

  Crime Reduction Programme and Partnership Development Fund

  41,883

  3*2,671,851

  Adult and Family Asylum Seekers and Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children

  10,025,493

  612,620,222

  Referral Order Pilots

  62,000

  44,198

  Communities Against Drugs

  199,400

  277,800

  Small Retailers in Deprived Areas

  710,499

  0

  1 The Ethnic Minorities and Travellers Achievement Grant, that replaced section 11grant at the end of 1998–99, is administered by the Department for Education and Employment.

  2 These figures had not been previously available.

  3* This includes the total grant for the Targeted Police Initiative Operation Lilac that was paid to both Westminster and Camden

  4 The figures in the PQ of 10 January 2002 were pre-audit figures and these are post audit figures.

  5 Westminster did not take up their allocation in 2001–02 but have in 2002–03.

  6 These figures were not mentioned in the reply of 10 January 2002 because they were not available.

  7 This money was spent after the PQ of 10 January 2002.

  Local Volunteer Development Organisations
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide funding for local volunteer development agencies to assist these organisations to register as an umbrella body to use the Criminal Records Bureau. [87249]

  Hilary Benn
  Since announcing, in February 2001, that higher level disclosure checks would be issued free of charge to volunteers, we have received representations from voluntary organisations requesting additional funding to meet their associated administrative costs. We have considered these representations very carefully but we are not persuaded that it would be appropriate for additional funding to be made available.

  We are in discussions with the voluntary and community sectors to explore a range of access arrangements for using the disclosure service which might meet the needs of the organisations concerned in the most appropriate and cost effective manner.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of parliamentary written answers from his Department in the last session consisted of a promise to write to an hon. Member. [83784]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office was asked 6,714 parliamentary written questions last session. Of these, 203, or three per cent. were given an "I will write" reply.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parliamentary written questions last session were responded to within(a) a week, (b) two weeks and (c) three weeks. [83785]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office was asked 6,714 parliamentary written questions last session. Of these, 2,613 were responded to within a week, 1,903 were answered within two weeks and 601 were answered within three weeks. We recognise that our performance in answering parliamentary questions is not as good as
  989W
  it should be, and we are working closely with directorates and its business change and IT partners to improve the situation.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) parliamentary questions and (b) letters from hon. Members in Session 2001–02 remain unanswered, broken down by those which are (i) one month old, (ii) two months old, (iii) three months old, (iv) four months old and (v) over six months old. [84804]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: The total number of letters received from hon. Members in the last session (2001–2002) was 26,769. The number that remain unanswered as at 6 December is 2,704.

  Number

  Total received

  26,769

  Total unanswered

  2,704

  Less than one month old

  641

  One month old

  415

  Two months old

  222

  Three months old

  210

  Four months old

  229

  Five months old

  177

  Six months old

  810

  The Home Office receives a large amount of correspondence from hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his ministerial team attach the highest importance to the speed and quality of replies to ministerial correspondence, but we recognise that further work is needed to improve the current levels of performance. A number of important initiatives within the Department have helped drive up performance and we are committed to continuing and extending this work. A new computer-based correspondence tracking system will be introduced shortly which will radically change the way we handle letters and will help us produce more timely responses.

  Most of the delays occur when responding to MPs' letters in relation to immigration cases, Whilst there is no doubt that the current performance is unacceptable, in many cases when a letter is received regarding an immigration case, it is necessary to locate the relevant file and get it to the person responding to the letter. The fact that cases are dealt with in various parts of the country adds to the difficulty. However, I have instigated further measures to resolve the backlog.

  The Cabinet Office publishes annual reports to Parliament, setting out the volume of Members' correspondence received by departments. The report for 2001 was published on Friday 24 May. Copies of previous reports are available in the Library.

  In accordance with the normal procedure, all outstanding parliamentary questions from the last session were answered before the session ended. Where a substantive answer was not available, honourable Members will receive a letter giving a full answer shortly, if they have not done so yet. A copy of all such letters will be placed in the Library.

  Police
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were within the City of London and Metropolitan Police force areas, broken down by London borough(a) at the most recent time for which figures are available, (b) in May 1997 based on the old boundaries and (c) in May 1997 based on the new boundaries. [87095]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: Information on the number of Metropolitan Police officers in each London Borough for May 1997 is not available. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has provided data, set out in the table, on divisional strength on 31 December 1997 and 31 March 2002. The current London borough divisional structure did not exist in 1997. The figures in the table are those for the previous smaller divisions aggregated into their new borough divisions.

  The effects of the boundary changes on 1 April 2000 were incorporated into the police funding formula in 2000–01 and the overall transfer was in terms of financial resources, not of officers.

  I am advised by the Commissioner that around 470 MPS officers were seconded to the three boundary change forces on 1 April 2000 to give them time to recruit their own officers to police the former MPS areas now in these counties. These officers returned to the MPS over the next two years. There are now no MPS officers on secondment to Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey as a result of the boundary changes of 1 April 2000.

  As it is for police authorities and chief officers of police to decide how resources are utilised, it is not possible to show what the strength for each London borough would have been in 1997 had the current territorial division structure been in place. Divisional strength in 1997 would have reflected operational priorities at the time. A sensible comparison between 1997 and 2002 cannot be made.

  Information about police strength in the City of London Police's two territorial divisions has been provided by the Commissioner of the City of London Police (Mr. James Hart QPM). He is unable to provide information about divisional police strength in 1997. The City of London Police was unaffected by the boundary changes on 1 April 2000.

  Police officers in the territorial divisions of both forces are, of course, supported by police officers in other operational roles, such as traffic, Serious Crime Group, Police Support Units and dogs and mounted sections. There are other officers in specialist squads such as fraud investigation and anti-terrorism duties.

  City of London Police and Metropolitan Police

  Metropolitan Police London Borough Divisions

  Number of police officers 31 December 1997

  Number of police officers 31 March 2002

  City of Westminster

  1,697

  1,544

  Kensington and Chelsea

  609

  541.2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  542

  515.1

  Camden

  697

  701.0

  Islington

  549

  564.1

  Harrow

  289

  288.9

  Brent

  613

  584.5

  Barnet

  706

  515.5

  991W

  City of London Police and Metropolitan Police

  Metropolitan Police London Borough Divisions

  Number of police officers 31 December 1997

  Number of police officers 31 March 2002

  Ealing

  627

  638.2

  Hillingdon

  398

  410.2

  Haringey

  527

  560.0

  Hackney

  677

  674.4

  Tower Hamlets

  568

  559.4

  Waltham Forest

  464

  468.1

  Redbridge

  497

  398.6

  Havering

  334

  319.4

  Newham

  590

  608.4

  Barking and Dagenham

  300

  298.6

  Enfield

  550

  491.0

  Southwark

  861

  805.3

  Lewisham

  610

  598.6

  Bromley

  464

  431.7

  Greenwich

  612

  574.2

  Bexley

  282

  320.8

  Croydon

  601

  591.0

  Sutton

  405

  257.0

  Lambeth

  917

  874.1

  Richmond upon Thames

  283

  277.0

  Hounslow

  457

  436.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  367

  266.9

  Merton

  293

  283.7

  Wandsworth

  596

  562.2

  Total

  17,982

  16,932.2

  Heathrow Airport1

  362

  302.6

  Divisional strength

  18,344

  17,234.8

  Total force strength

  226,677

  226,223

  1 These police posts are paid for by Heathrow Airport Plc.

  2 Total force strength is taken from data collected from the forces by Home Office Research, Development and Statistical Group

  Note:

  Figures are full-time equivalents.

  City of London Police Territorial Divisions

  Divisional Strength

  Divisional Strength

  Snow Hill

  Not available

  207.3

  Bishopsgate

  Not available

  194.9

  Total force strength

  1859

  1764

  1 Total force strength is taken from data collected from the forces by Home Office Research, Development and Statistical Group.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the change in police(a) pay and (b) pension costs to be met by police authorities between 2002–03 and 2003–04. [87360]

  Mr. Denham
  It is for each police authority to estimate its projected changes in pay and pensions costs each year.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the whole-time equivalent police officer establishment was for(a) 1992, (b) 1997, (c) 2000 and (d) 2002, in each London borough, giving the percentage and actual variations in each case [85829]

  Mr. Denham
  The information has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The Metropolitan police is unable to provide establishments for each London borough in 1992, 1997 and 2000 as the current London borough divisional arrangement was only introduced after the boundary changes of 1 April 2000 with Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. The figures shown are therefore the aggregate strength of the old divisions that now fall within the new London borough Divisions for 31 December in each of those years.

  The effects of the Metropolitan police boundary changes on 1 April 2000 were incorporated into the police funding formula and the overall transfer between
  992W
  the forces was in terms of financial resources, not of officers. It is for police authorities and Chief Constables to decide how resources are utilised.

  I am advised by the Commissioner that around 470 MPS officers were seconded to the three boundary change forces on 1 April 2000 to give them time to recruit their own officers to police the former MPS areas now in these counties. These officers returned to the MPS over the next two years. There are now no MPS officers on secondment to Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey as a result of the boundary changes of 1 April 2000.

  Since 2001 each London borough has been provided with a Budgeted Strength (establishment), which is set by the Commissioner at the start of the financial year, and which the division aims to achieve by the end of the financial year. These borough establishments can be subject to change in the light of changes in circumstances.

  The total strength of the Metropolitan police at 31 March 2002 was 26,223 officers, 1,345 more than in March 2001. At the same date the Metropolitan police employed 10,459 civilian support staff, 419 more than in March 2001.

  Metropolitan police: actual strength—31 December 1992,31 December 1997 and 31 December 2000

  Number of police officers as at 31 December

  London borough division

  1992

  1997

  2000

  City of Westminster

  1,906

  1,697

  1,580

  Kensington and Chelsea

  632

  609

  557

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  541

  542

  517

  Camden

  722

  697

  671

  Islington

  547

  549

  554

  Harrow

  272

  289

  295

  Brent

  624

  613

  606

  Barnet

  759

  706

  517

  Ealing

  620

  627

  611

  Hillingdon

  454

  398

  376

  Haringey

  562

  527

  533

  Hackney

  611

  677

  673

  Tower Hamlets

  669

  568

  548

  Waltham Forest

  462

  464

  453

  Redbridge

  520

  497

  390

  Havering

  366

  334

  320

  Newham

  570

  590

  583

  Barking and Dagenham

  286

  300

  278

  Enfield

  532

  550

  478

  Southwark

  817

  861

  801

  Lewisham

  594

  610

  584

  Bromley

  473

  464

  440

  Greenwich

  545

  612

  586

  Bexley

  277

  282

  310

  Croydon

  598

  601

  549

  Sutton

  374

  405

  254

  Lambeth

  980

  917

  875

  Richmond upon Thames

  298

  283

  260

  Hounslow

  641

  457

  411

  Kingston upon Thames

  375

  367

  256

  Merton

  291

  293

  290

  Wandsworth

  672

  596

  555

  Total

  18,589

  17,982

  16,712

  Heathrow Airport1

  442

  362

  304

  Divisional total

  19,031

  18,344

  17,016

  1 These police posts are paid for by Heathrow Airport Plc.

  Note:

  Figures are full-time equivalents.
  993W

  Metropolitan police: budgeted work force total and actual strength—31 March 2002

  Variation and percentage

  London borough division

  Police budgeted strength1

  Actual police numbers at 31 March 20021

  Difference

  Percentage

  City of Westminster

  1,642

  1,544.0

  -98.0

  -5.97

  Kensington and Chelsea

  577

  541.2

  -35.8

  -6.21

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  539

  515.1

  -23.9

  -4.43

  Camden

  699

  701.0

  +2.0

  +0.3

  Islington

  584

  564.1

  -19.9

  -3.41

  Harrow

  311

  288.9

  -22.1

  -7.12

  Brent

  637

  584.5

  -52.5

  -8.24

  Barnet

  542

  515.5

  -26.5

  -4.89

  Ealing

  656

  638.2

  -17.8

  -2.71

  Hillingdon

  395

  410.2

  +15.2

  +3.84

  Haringey

  562

  560.0

  -2.0

  -0.35

  Hackney

  708

  647.4

  -60.6

  -8.56

  Tower Hamlets

  578

  559.4

  -18.6

  -3.22

  Waltham Forest

  474

  468.1

  -5.9

  -1.24

  Redbridge

  414

  398.6

  -15.4

  -3.73

  Havering

  334

  319.4

  -14.6

  -4.37

  Newham

  616

  608.4

  -7.6

  -1.24

  Barking and Dagenham

  294

  298.6

  +4.6

  +1.57

  Enfield

  515

  491.0

  -24.0

  -4.65

  Southwark

  839

  805.3

  -33.7

  -4.02

  Lewisham

  612

  598.6

  -13.4

  -2.19

  Bromley

  458

  431.7

  -26.3

  -5.75

  Greenwich

  613

  574.2

  -38.8

  -6.33

  Bexley

  328

  320.8

  -7.2

  -2.18

  Croydon

  595

  591.0

  -4.0

  -0.68

  Sutton

  270

  257.0

  -13

  -4.82

  Lambeth

  923

  874.1

  -48.9

  -5.29

  Richmond upon Thames

  274

  277.0

  +3

  +1.09

  Hounslow

  435

  436.3

  +1.3

  +0.29

  Kingston upon Thames

  272

  266.9

  -5.1

  -1.87

  Merton

  303

  283.7

  -19.3

  -6.38

  Wandsworth

  586

  562.2

  -23.8

  -4.06

  Total

  17,585

  16,932.2

  -652.8

  -3.71

  Heathrow Airport2

  301

  302.6

  +1.6

  +0.53

  Divisional total

  17,886

  17,234.8

  -651.2

  -3.64

  1 Figures are full-time equivalents.

  2 These police posts are paid for by Heathrow Airport Plc.

  Prisons
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been recalled to custody following a breach of a prison licence in each month since March 2001. [84302]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: Information on the number of people being recalled to custody following a breach of licence is given in the table.

  Ordinary licence

  Home detention curfew (HDC)

  2001

  March

  311

  54

  April

  295

  51

  May

  239

  46

  June

  302

  58

  July

  374

  61

  August

  518

  63

  September

  314

  67

  October

  424

  60

  November

  456

  48

  December

  277

  71

  994W

  Ordinary licence

  Home detention curfew (HDC)

  2002

  January

  695

  62

  February

  429

  66

  March

  490

  64

  April

  364

  78

  May

  547

  117

  June

  465

  147

  July

  506

  154

  August

  569

  166

  September

  591

  148

  October

  700

  153

  A breach may be a non-compliance of a licence condition. However, consideration must be given primarily, to the element of risk to the public, regardless of an actual breach, that the offender presents in terms of his behaviour. If his behaviour pattern suggests that there may be further offending, and therefore there may be a risk to the public, then that too would be considered a breach.

  Replica Firearms
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will prohibit the sale of replica firearms. [87284]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I am considering how we might improve controls on the possession of replica firearms.

  Secure Units
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has for expanding(a) local authority secure units, (b) young offenders institutions and (c) secure training centres; and if he will make a statement. [85198]

  Hilary Benn
  The number of places in Local Authority Secure Units (LASUs) available to the Youth Justice Board (YJB) was increased by 60 during 2002–03. The Board has no plans to increase the number of LASU places further.

  The Prison Service has made available a further 164 places to the YJB for juveniles during 2002–03. No decisions have been made whether or not to seek to continue this requirement during 2003–04, but the YJB has no plans to expand further the number of juvenile Young Offender Institution places.

  Work on providing an additional 64 beds at Rainsbrook and Medway Secure Training Centres (STCS) has recently been completed. The number of places in STCs has therefore increased during 2002–03 from 130 to 194. The YJB is preparing a contract for the development of a new 80-bed Secure Training Centre at Milton Keynes which it hopes may be available in 2004–05. The Board's current plans are that those additional 80 places will substitute for non-STC places. No firm decisions have been made about any further expansion of the STC estate.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the forecast budget is for(a) local authority secure units, (b) young offenders institutions and (c) secure training centres in (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04 and (iii) 2004–05. [85200]

  Hilary Benn
  The Home Office pays annual grant to the Youth Justice Board to meet the costs of the youth justice service in England and Wales, including the provision of juvenile secure accommodation. The Board's forecast expenditure in 2002–03 and its provisional budget for 2003–04, subject to final decisions on allocations following the Spending Review 2002 Settlement for secure accommodation, is as follows:

  £ million

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Local authority secure units

  56

  53

  Young offender institutions

  155

  161

  Secure training centres1

  38

  59

  1 Includes capital

  Details of provision for 2004–05 are not yet available following the Spending Review Settlement and are the subject of discussions between the Department and the board.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [87697]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The Home Office publishes progress against all its outstanding Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets in its Departmental Report. The Annual Report for 2001–02 (Cm 5406) was laid before Parliament in June, and is available on the Home Office website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk). The Home Office PSA targets for 2003–04 to 2005–06 are contained in the Spending Review White Paper published by the Treasury (Cm 5571).

  Street Robberies
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many street robberies took place in the Greater London area during the last 12 months. [86826]

  Mr. Denham
  National statistics on recorded crime published in July showed that there were 53,547 robberies in the Metropolitan Police Force area between April 2001 and March 2002, which represented an increase of 31 per cent. compared to the previous year.

  Figures published in October 2002, as part of the Street Crime Initiative, showed that there were 20,773 robberies between April and September 2002. This was 17 per cent. below the level recorded for the same period the previous year. There were 33 per cent. fewer robberies and snatch thefts in the Metropolitan Police in September 2002 when compared to January 2002, which was the month immediately preceding the onset of Operation Safer Streets.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many households living in(a) Liverpool, (b) Birmingham, (c) Newcastle and (d) the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham who are in receipt of council tax benefit have had their benefit capped as a consequence of the council tax benefit restrictions in (i) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [85677]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available by local authority. The available information is in the table.

  Council tax benefit claims restricted to Band E by Government Office Region at May 2000 and May 2001

  Government Office Region

  May 2000

  May 2001

  North East

  1—

  1—

  North West

  21,000

  21,000

  West Midlands

  21,000

  21,000

  London

  9,000

  9,000

  997W
  1 Signifies nil or negligible.

  2 Figures under 2,400 arc subject to a high degree of sampling variation and

  should be used only as a guide.

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households claiming Council Tax Benefit which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a Hat or house share arrangement.

  2. Figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand and are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  4. Figures exclude any Second Adult Rebate cases.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 2000 and May 2001.

  Fairground Safety
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many fatal accidents there have been at fairgrounds in each of the last 10 years; [85730]

  (2) what changes in the regulation of fairground safety there have been since 2000; [85728]

  (3) what plans he has for reforms of fairground safety. [86502]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The table sets out the numbers of fatal accidents over the last 10 years:

  Number of fatal accidents

  1990–91

  3

  1991–92

  11

  1992–93

  0

  1993–94

  11

  1994–95

  4

  1995–96

  0

  1996–97

  11

  1997–98

  11

  1998–99

  0

  1999–2000

  11

  2000–01

  5

  2001–02

  12

  1 Indicates a fatal accident to an employee.

  Following a number of fatal accidents at fairground rides in 2000 the Health and Safety Commission (HSC)/Executive (HSE) carried out a fundamental review of fairground safety, in consultation with the fairground industry.

  The Review considered that the current regulatory regime is fit for purpose as a flexible framework for continuing to improve accident prevention. It is based on a sound framework of law and industry-specific guidance, receives high level of support from the leaders of industry, and has been shown to be enforceable by the Health and Safety Executive. If it is complied with fully, competently and diligently the risks of death and injury will be minimised.

  However, the Review also recognised that reforms could be made to improve standards of safety in the fairground industry and made a number of recommendations to strengthen the existing regime including that inspectors should specialise more in
  998W
  relation to this industry. HSE has now established a National Fairground Inspection Team to improve consistency of approach and to use to the maximum the expertise and experience of the HSE Inspectors working in this area.

  There are therefore are no immediate plans for further reforms of fairground safety. The Health and Safety Executive has acted upon recommendations contained in the fundamental review of fairground safety that reported to the Health and Safety Commission in September 2001. Additional legislative controls remain an option should there be deterioration in compliance with the existing regime or in accidents.

  Access to Financial Services
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the recommendations in the report of Policy Action Team 14 on Access to Financial Services on the scope of the Social Fund. [85180]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are committed to reducing social and financial exclusion and have given careful consideration to the recommendation of Policy Action Team 14 on extending the scope of Social Fund loans to people in low-paid employment.

  The discretionary Social Fund provides grants and loans to help some of the neediest people in our society manage a wide range of unexpected or occasional costs. Over 1.2 million budgeting loans were made last year to people with the lowest incomes, receiving income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. We have no current plans to extend access to budgeting loans to people with higher incomes as such help would be poorly targeted and potentially very costly.

  We continue to keep all aspects of the fund under review.

  Ageism
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proposals he has to tackle age discrimination in the workplace; and what options are open to older people who have been discriminated against without going to the courts. [87366]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have made a pledge to tackle age discrimination and we are committed to introducing age legislation covering employment, vocational training and guidance by 2006. Until the legislation is introduced there is no recourse to the courts. In the meantime older people who feel they have suffered discrimination in employment because of their age can encourage the employer to look at our website www.agepositive.gov.uk. This provides details about the business benefits of non-ageist employment practices, employer case studies, information about the forthcoming legislation and offers useful links to other organisations such as the Employers Forum on Age.

  We have been vigorously promoting the benefits of age diversity and the recruitment, training and retention of older workers to employers through our Age Positive campaign. The campaign focuses on raising employers' awareness of the business case for an age diverse workforce and encourages them to use the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment to inform

  999W
  their employment policies. The campaign features a range of initiatives including awards events, conferences, good practice publications and guidance to promote age diversity, as well as the Age Positive website.

  The Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment, published in 1999, sets out the standards for non-ageist approaches to recruitment, training, promotion, redundancy and retirement. An updated version of the Code of Practice was released during Age Positive week which ran from 2 to 6 December. The Code was developed with leading organisations including the CBI, TUC, the Employers Forum on Age and Age Concern. Evaluation shows that from 1999 to 2001 the number of companies using age in recruitment has already fallen from 27 per cent. to 13 per cent., and the number of companies having a policy against employing older workers has dropped from 14 per cent. to 7 per cent.

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to which bodies his Department makes appointments; how many members there are(a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) businessmen, (ii) businessmen in SM Es and (iii) businessmen in micro-businesses. [87401]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 606W.

  Benefits
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people claimed(a) Jobseeker's Allowance, (b) child-related benefits, (c) winter fuel payments and (d) sickness-related benefits in (i) Somerset and (ii) South West England in each of the last five years. [82611]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the tables. Many benefit recipients fall within more than one category and there is therefore a degree of overlap between the figures.

  Number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance

  Somerset

  South West Region

  May 1998

  7,109

  82,437

  May 1999

  6,401

  75,624

  May 2000

  5,174

  61,960

  May 2001

  4,633

  52,725

  May 2002

  3,843

  49,492

  Notes:

  1. Figures are unrounded.

  2. Figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Source

  Jobseeker's Allowance Computer System, 100 per cent. claimant count.

  Number of families receiving Child Benefit

  Somerset

  South West Region

  August 1999

  57,295

  567,910

  August 2000

  57,360

  568,940

  August 2001

  57,360

  568,440

  August 2002

  57,705

  567,930

  1000W
  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Figures by county and region are not available prior to 1999.

  Source:

  Child Benefit Computer System, 100 per cent. claimant count.

  Number of families on key benefits

  Somerset

  South West Region

  May 1998

  8,400

  92,100

  May 1999

  7,600

  90,300

  May 2000

  7,500

  85,000

  May 2001

  7,300

  82,700

  May 2002

  7,000

  78,200

  Notes:

  1. Key benefits are Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance with a child premium, and Incapacity Benefit Severe Disablement Allowance with a child dependency increase.

  2. Child premia and child dependency increases are paid for children under 16 and young adult dependents aged 16–18 for whom Child Benefit is payable.

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre Client Group Analysis, 5 per cent. statistical samples.

  Winter Fuel Payment recipients

  Winter

  Somerset

  South West Region

  1999–2000

  103,600

  1,003,100

  2000–01

  113,700

  1,098,900

  2001–02

  116,200

  1,112,200

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Winter Fuel Payment Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service, 100 per cent. data.

  Number of people claiming sickness related benefits

  Somerset

  South West Region

  May 1998

  15,300

  166,900

  May 1999

  15,700

  172,300

  May 2000

  15,700

  174,700

  May 2001

  16,600

  179,600

  May 2002

  17,200

  182,600

  Notes:

  1. Sickness related benefits are Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Income Support with a disability premium.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre Client Group Analysis, 5 per cent. statistical samples.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) income support claimants and (b) incapacity benefit claimants there were in each year since 1997. [86677]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the tables.

  People claiming incapacity benefit

  Date

  Number

  May 1997

  2,370,500

  May 1998

  2,316,900

  May 1999

  2,277,500

  May 2000

  2,263,200

  May 2001

  2,327,000

  May 2002

  2,365,700

  1001W
  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. Figures include a number of people claiming for national insurance credit purposes only.

  4. Figures include a small number of people resident overseas.

  Source:

  5. per cent. samples of the incapacity benefit computer system, which exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  People receiving income support

  Date

  Working age

  Non working age

  Total

  May 1997

  2,425,500

  1,532,600

  3,958,100

  May 1998

  2,380,100

  1,473,000

  3,853,100

  May 1999

  2,377,700

  1,436,700

  3,814,400

  May 2000

  2,385,200

  1,425,300

  3,810,500

  May 2001

  2,401,800

  1,526,100

  3,927,900

  May 2002

  2,378,000

  1,551,800

  3,929,800

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation

  3. Working age is defined as under 60 for women and under 65 for men

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries.

  Child Support Payments
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress is being made to speed up the introduction of the proposed changes to the method of calculating child support payments for(a) new and (b) current cases. [88154]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 317W.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many departmental Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he has sent this year. [88112]

  Mr. McCartney
  A total of 1,230 Christmas cards were purchased for our Ministers at a total cost of £1,619.34. All expenditure incurred in the purchase and despatch of official Christmas cards is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting. As it is Christmas, I have sent the hon. Member a Christmas card.

  Civil Servants
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many civil servants are employed by his Department; and how much money was spent by his Department in the last 12 months, broken down by local authority area. [87179]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 17 December 2002,Official Report, column 608W.

  Community Care Grant
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what change in real terms spending power was provided by the cash rise in the community care grant budget from 1997–1998 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [85157]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The community care grant budget, previously frozen since 1994, has been increased four times since 1997. In 1997–98 the community care grant budget was £972 million, which in 2002–03 prices is equivalent to £109.21 million. The 2002–03 community care grant budget is £1082 million, a drop of £1.2 million, or 1.1 per cent.

  At the same time there has been a drop in the number of people receiving income-related benefits which give access to community care grants (Income Support, the Minimum Income Guarantee and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance. Between 1997–98 and 2000–01 the reduction was 9.9 per cent.3 and a further fall in the numbers is forecast with an expected drop of 10.8 per cent. between 1997–98 and 2002–033. As a result, the per capita amount available to people eligible for community care grants has risen by 10.8 per cent. in real terms.
  1 Real terms' refers to 2002–03 prices, calculated using HM Treasury's GDP deflator series, published on 27 November 2002. The GDP deflator for 2002–03 is a working assumption.

  Sources:
  2 Secretary of State's Annual Reports on the Social Fund 1997–98 and 2001–02.
  3 Benefit Forecasting and Model Development Division's latest expenditure and case load tables.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the standard of decision-making on community care grant applications. [85164]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We announced in the PBR that we will be working with the Treasury to improve Social Fund administration and delivery. We already have procedures in place which aim to drive though a continuous programme of improvement in all benefit decision making.

  As part of the Department's national Decision Making and Appeals quality checking programme, a specialist Social Fund team monitors the quality of decision making on all elements of the Social Fund. The programme is complemented by local quality checks. The primary function of these procedures is to identify trends in decision making which require remedial action and inform staff training and guidance needs.

  The Independent Review Service for the Social Fund (IRS) provides an impartial review for customers who are dissatisfied with the outcome of their application to the discretionary Social Fund, following an internal review by a DWP reviewing officer. Around 1 per cent. of decisions are referred to the IRS for review. In November 2001, the IRS published a report "Grants Budgets and Decision Making" which sought to explain the relatively high number of community care grant decisions which it was substituting. In response to the report, the Department has made further improvements to the Social Fund guidance for decision makers on

  1003W
  prioritisation and budgetary control. The IRS also provides valuable feedback to local offices on the standard of decision making in every case it sees.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will change the rules and guidance for community care grants and crisis loans to ensure that applicants without(a) a cooker and (b) a bed are given a grant or loan. [85167]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The discretionary Social Fund provides people on low incomes with grants and loans to help them manage a wide range of unexpected or occasional costs, including the purchase of beds and cookers, depending on their individual circumstances.

  On 27 November, we announced that from April 2003, £90 million will be added to the discretionary fund over the three years to 2005–06. This extra investment will enhance the fund's ability to help those on low incomes manage their finances.

  We have already introduced a number of important changes to the Social Fund. We have simplified the budgeting loan scheme so that all applicants who satisfy the qualifying conditions, and have no outstanding Social Fund debt, will be offered a loan. We have also extended the qualifying conditions for community care grants to help people setting up home in the community who have been without a settled way of life.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will extend the eligibility for community care grants and budgeting loans from the Social Fund to people(a) whose sole income is (i) incapacity benefit and (ii) contribution based jobseekers allowance and (b) who are receiving the maximum child tax credit. [85168]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The discretionary Social Fund provides grants and loans to help some of the neediest people in our society manage a wide range of unexpected or occasional costs. Around 1.5 million community care grants and budgeting loans were made last year to people with the lowest incomes, receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseekers Allowance. We have taken the view that access to the discretionary Fund should not be extended to people with higher incomes as such help would be poorly targeted and potentially very costly.

  We continue to keep all aspects of the Fund under review.

  Crisis Loans
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the arrangements are for customers to apply for and receive a crisis loan when they live a long way from the office that decides upon crisis loan applications. [85290]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We recognise that crisis loan applicants normally require a same day service. Individual managers understand local problems and geography and are responsible for making suitable arrangements for the delivery of, and access to, all locally-administered benefits including the Social Fund.
  1004W
  Exceptionally, where a customer is unable to visit their local office, for example an elderly or disabled person with restricted mobility, or a person who lives a long way from the office and who has no access to suitable transport, they may contact the office by telephone to request a home visit. If the information given by the applicant indicates that a crisis loan is likely to be awarded, a visit may be made for the application to be completed and, where appropriate, the loan to be paid.

  We believe that the current arrangements are sufficiently flexible to support a good standard of delivery to customers, regardless of their location.

  Departmental Training
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of his Department's staff have been sent on(a) training days and (b) training weekends in the last 12 months; and what the total cost of this training has been. [88207]

  Mr. McCartney
  During the 12 month period ending March 2002, the most recent year for which these data are available, the Department spent £97.3 million on staff training and development. This equates to an average of just under £800 for each member of Staff in the Department.

  The information on training undertaken at weekends is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Drug Addicts
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many former drug addicts are in paid employment. [86697]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is not available.

  We are committed to helping unemployed people who are taking positive steps to overcome their drug problem to move into work. Earlier this year, we introduced the Progress2work initiative to give recovering drug misusers the extra help they need to get into employment.

  Progress2work provides specialist support to help recovering drug misusers also to make the best use of our welfare to work initiatives and move into jobs. It equips Jobcentre Plus staff with the skills and knowledge they need to better identify people whose drug misuse puts them at a disadvantage in the labour market, and refer them to appropriate provision.

  We launched the first Progress2work projects in the spring, in 27 pathfinder areas throughout the country, including one in my hon. Friend's constituency. We are now extending the initiative to a further 36 areas and plan to roll out the programme nationally from next year.

  Economic Inactivity
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people aged between 50 and state pension age were economically inactive in each year since 1998. [86661]
  1005W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table:

  Year/quarter

  Number of economically inactive people aged 50-State pension age

  percentage of 50-State pension age population

  1998

  Spring

  2,569,000

  31.3

  Summer

  2,568,000

  31.0

  Autumn

  2,549,000

  30.6

  Winter

  2,546,000

  30.4

  1999

  Spring

  2,577,000

  30.7

  Summer

  2,609,000

  30.9

  Autumn

  2,600,000

  30.6

  Winter

  2,616,000

  30.7

  2000

  Spring

  2,594,000

  30.3

  Summer

  2,592,000

  30.1

  Autumn

  2,610,000

  30.2

  Winter

  2,597,000

  29.9

  2001

  Spring

  2,600,000

  29.8

  Summer

  2,594,000

  29.7

  Autumn

  2,613,000

  29.8

  Winter

  2,621,000

  29.8

  2002

  Spring

  2,614,000

  29.6

  Summer

  2,587,000

  29.2

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been seasonally adjusted.

  2. The data in this table have been adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census population data, but may be subject to further adjustment.

  3. Denominator of the rate is all people in the age group.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey

  Employment Zones
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people have been helped into sustained employment via the Employment Zone scheme(a) in each year since its introduction and (b) broken down according to each employment zone; and what his definition of sustained employment is for this purpose; [85974]

  (2) how much has been (a) budgeted and (b) spent on the Employment Zone scheme in each year since its introduction (i) in total and (ii) in each zone; and if he will make a statement. [85976]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: Between April 2000, when they were launched, and September 2002, Employment Zones have helped 29,144 people into work. Of these, 21,001 have been helped into sustained employment (i.e. jobs lasting more than 13 weeks).

  Information on the number of people helped into sustained employment in each Employment Zone is in the following table. The majority of Contract 1 job outcomes have been notified to the Department. A large number of participants recruited onto Contract 2 remain on the programme. Their job outcomes will continue to be notified to, and validated by, the Department. The Contract 2 figures will, therefore, continue to increase.
  1006W

  Number of people helped into sustained employment

  Employment zone

  April 2000—July 2001(Contract 1)

  July 2001—June 2002(Contract 2)

  Birmingham

  2,847

  1,421

  Brent

  702

  248

  Brighton and Hove

  872

  330

  Doncaster and Bassetlaw

  457

  324

  Glasgow

  1,790

  598

  Haringey

  1,814

  367

  Liverpool and Sefton

  1,691

  658

  Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland

  593

  233

  Newham

  876

  304

  North West Wales

  300

  47

  Nottingham

  297

  248

  Plymouth

  469

  187

  Southwark

  1,165

  522

  Tower Hamlets

  592

  356

  Heads of the Valley, Caerphilly and Torfaen

  432

  261

  Note:

  Employment Zones vary in size and coverage.

  Source:

  Employment Zone Management Information

  Information on the total budget and expenditure on the Employment Zone initiative is as follows:

  £ million

  Total budget

  Total expenditure

  2000–01

  56.4

  72.0

  2001–02

  87.0

  195.5

  2002–03

  91.3

  Not yet available

  1 Forecast

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus

  These increases reflect a rise in the number of Employment Zone clients, and the high level of performance achieved by the zones.

  Information on budgets and expenditure for individual Employment Zones cannot be published because they are commercially confidential. Both budget and expenditure figures include benefit equivalent payments made to participants while on the Employment Zone.

  Based on the April 2000—June 2001 cohort study, the average cost per job in Employment Zones is around £3,400. The cohort study covers those people who have completed their time on the Employment Zone.

  Health and Safety
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many inspections per band 3 inspector are made on average in the North West Division of the Health and Safety Executive each working week; and what proposals there are to increase the frequency of inspections, excluding complaint and accident investigations; [84775]

  (2) what action has been taken to increase the inspection rate of principal inspectors and band 3 inspectors at the North West Division Office of the Health and Safety Executive. [84776]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In the 25 working weeks between 7 April 2002—the start of the Health and Safety Executive's Field Operations Directorate's working
  1007W
  year—and 28 September 2002—half-year stage—each band 3 operational inspector in HSE's North West Division made, on average, two inspection contacts per week. In addition, on average, each band 3 operational inspector made one investigation contact, one complaint follow-up contact and one enforcement contact per week.

  These figures do not include any inspection or other contacts made by HSE's Construction Division or other operating directorates in the North West.

  A number of actions have been taken to increase the contact time of band 3 inspectors in HSE's Field Operations Directorate and work continues to explore further steps. These actions will allow more work involving direct contact with duty-holders to take place; this includes investigation work as well as inspections. Actions being investigated or taken include: (i) enabling administrative staff to input data relating to inspection contacts; (ii) increasing direct administrative resource to support inspectors; (iii) providing better information on the work of inspectors to allow management support

  Inspection

  Enforcement

  RIDDOR investigation

  Complaint follow-up

  Others

  Total contacts of type

  1,539

  517

  875

  402

  238

  Numbers per Band 3 Inspector per week

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0.5

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what formal qualifications the(a) Director General and (b) Deputy Director General (Operations) of HSE have in health and safety management. [84779]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Following open competition, both appointments were made by the Health and Safety Commission and approved by the relevant Secretary of State. The principal requirements are the ability to direct and manage a large and complex organisation. Neither have specific health and safety management qualifications. However, they have access to advice on the management of health and safety issues from HSE's staff who collectively have comprehensive and authoritative expertise. I am advised that both are fully acquainted with health and safety legislation, to perform their official functions in HSE as well as management organization.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and pensions how many companies were(a) investigated by the Health and Safety Executive and (b) convicted of health and safety offences in 2001–02 in (i) the North East and (ii) the UK; and what the average fine was for companies convicted of health and safety offences in each year from 1997–2002 in (A) the North East and (B) the UK. [86489]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of companies(a) investigated by the Health and Safety Executive and (b) convicted of health and safety offences in 2001–02 in (i) the North East and (ii) Great Britain is as follows.
  1008W
  to be given to those who need it most and (iv) promulgating best practice by those inspectors who achieve the highest proportion of their time inspecting.

  Principal Inspectors (band 2) are a management grade and are not set targets for inspection work. They carry out operational work according to need and for a number of reasons, including to remain familiar with work conditions and practices, to monitor the standards of their staff and to train new staff.

  HSE does not measure, nor have a target for, the frequency of inspections to particular workplaces except for those where risks are highest. HSE targets most inspections according to hazard and risk. The Field Operations Directorate is currently investigating ways of increasing the proportion of time inspectors spend in contact with duty holders.

  The role of an operational band 3 inspector is not limited to inspections: around 50 per cent. of their available time is spent dealing with reactive work, ie: incident and complaint investigation. In the first 25 weeks of 2002–03 operational band 3 inspectors in the North West Division made a total of 3,571 regulatory contacts, broken down as in the table:

  Companies investigated

  Companies convicted

  Year

  North East

  Great Britain

  North East

  Great Britain

  2001–021,2

  635

  6,994

  48

  691

  1 From 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  2 Provisional

  The second and third columns of the table give figures for investigations of reports made under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases, and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. In some of these companies more than one incident may have been investigated.

  The average fine imposed on companies convicted of health and safety offences in each year from 1997–98 to 2001–02 in (A) the North East and (B) Great Britain is as follows:

  £

  Average Fine

  Year

  North East

  Great Britain

  2001–021

  3,464

  11,722

  2000–01

  7,208

  8,073

  1999–2000

  4,358

  9,034

  1998–99

  3,908

  4,303

  1997–98

  3,900

  6,222

  1 Provisional

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under what circumstances a person making a fresh claim for housing benefit in one of the proposed
  1009W
  pilot areas for housing benefit reform after the pilots have begun will receive less housing benefit than under the existing rules. [83955]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: The standard local housing allowance will provide a better, quicker service based on simpler, clearer rules, and will for the first time give tenants real choice over their housing decisions.

  The standard allowance will be calculated on the same basis as the existing local reference rent. The scheme is therefore designed so that tenants should not be worse off than if they had claimed under the existing rules. In fact, current estimates suggest that around half of affected tenants will gain from the reforms when compared to the existing rules. Details of the scheme will be contained in regulations, which will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate(a) how many and (b) what percentage of housing benefit claimants' housing benefit entitlement meets less than 100 per cent. of their rent

  HB recipients receiving an amount less than their eligible rent:

  All HB recipients

  With income from employment

  With other income

  With non-dependant deductions

  Tenure type

  Number

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Local Authority

  2,133,000

  113,000

  5.3

  469,000

  22

  100,000

  4.7

  Registered Social Landlord

  998,000

  74,000

  7.4

  222,000

  22.3

  32,000

  3.2

  Private Rented Sector

  743,000

  78,000

  10.5

  144,000

  19.4

  16,000

  2.1

  Total

  3,874,000

  264,000

  6.8

  836,000

  21.6

  147,000

  3.8

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households claiming Housing Benefit which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Percentages refer to the percentage of all Housing Benefit recipients in each type of tenure and are rounded to one decimal place.

  4. Figures exclude any Extended Payment cases.

  5. Figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  6. Figures are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  7. The number of Housing Benefit recipients receiving less than their eligible rent for reasons other than those stated is negligible.

  8. There may be some overlap in the figures, as recipients will be counted each time they fall into any of the three categories mentioned.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System

  Annual 1 per cent. sample taken in May 2001.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many claimants have been in receipt of incapacity benefit payment for(a) six months or less, (b) between six months and one year, (c) between one and two years and (d) between two and five years; what the average period of payment is for current claimants of incapacity benefit and what the comparable averages were in each year since 1997; how many people received incapacity benefit in each year since 1997; and how many of these represented new claims; [85978]

  (2) how many new claimants of incapacity benefit in the last six months represented (a) transfers from other social security benefits, (b) people moving from employment onto benefit and (c) people moving onto benefit from unknown origins; [85979]
  1010W
  due, because of (i) income from employment, (ii) other income, (iii) rent restrictions, (iv) non-dependent deductions and (v) other reasons, broken down by (A) local authority (B) housing association, and (C) private sector tenure. [84360]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of Housing Benefit recipients whose benefit is currently reduced because of rent restrictions is not collected. However, based on the number of referrals made to the Rent Service, we estimate that in around 67 per cent. of cases, tenants in the deregulated private rented sector would have their rent restricted under the reference rent schemes or other property-based criteria if their Housing Benefit claims were successful.

  The table shows the total number of Housing Benefit recipients by tenure type and the number and proportions of these who receive an amount less than their eligible rent, at May 2001. The eligible rent is the amount of rent which may be met by Housing Benefit after ineligible charges have been deducted and, in the case of tenants in the deregulated private rented sector, after any restrictions have been applied by the rent officer.

  (3) how many people leaving incapacity benefit in the last six months represented (a) transfers to other social security benefits, (b) people moving from benefit into employment and (c) people moving off benefit to unknown destinations. [85980]

  (4) what percentage of the working age population is in receipt of incapacity benefit; and what the comparable averages were in each year since 1997; [85981]

  (5) how many claimants of incapacity benefit in the last six months had been in receipt of either (a) jobseeker's allowance and (b) income support at any time during the previous 12 months. [85982]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The Green Paper "Pathways to Works: Helping People into Employment" (Cm 5690) sets out our strategy for enabling people with health problems and disabilities to move into work, and so become and remain independent. At the heart of this strategy is

  1011W
  tailored and intensive support delivered in a new Choices Package, giving help to those with the clear potential to get back into work. These measures will be piloted from October 2003.

  The available information is set out in the tables.

  Number of people in Great Britain receiving Incapacity Benefit (IB) at 31 May 2002, by the duration of their IB claim

  Duration of IB claim

  Number

  Under six months

  132,400

  Six months to one year

  95,800

  One to two years

  168,100

  Two to five years

  352,900

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. The figures include a small number of cases where the customer is resident overseas.

  Average claim duration for Incapacity Benefit (IB) recipients

  Source:

  Figures are taken from a 5 per cent sample of the benefit computer system and exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  Average duration (weeks)

  31 March 1997

  292

  31 March 1998

  302

  31 March 1999

  315

  31 March 2000

  326

  31 March 2001

  328

  Notes:

  1. Average duration has been rounded to the nearest week.

  2. Average durations include all Incapacity Benefit recipients at a point in time, including those who leave benefit within a year.

  Source:

  Figures are taken from 1 per cent samples of cases.

  Number of people receiving Incapacity Benefit (IB) in Great Britain at some time within the dates shown, and how many of these were new awards within that year

  Year

  Numbers receiving IB at some time in the previous year

  Numbers receiving IB at the dates shown

  Numbers of non-linking1 awards within the periods shown

  01/04/96 to 31/03/97

  2,362,000

  1,798,000

  488,000

  01/04/97 to 31/03/98

  2,287,000

  1,729,000

  456,000

  1/04/98 to 31/03/99

  2,125,000

  1,615,000

  379,000

  01/04/99 to 31/03/00

  1,995,000

  1,514,000

  364,000

  01/04/00 to 31/03/01

  1,979,000

  1,573,000

  388,000

  Notes:

  1. Unlike Invalidity Benefit which it replaced on 13 April 1995 long term rate Incapacity Benefit is not payable to people over state pension age. This change contributed to the reduction in the numbers receiving Incapacity Benefit between 1995 and 2000. People who had reached pension age before 13 April and were in receipt of Incapacity Benefit were able to get Incapacity Benefit for up to five years beyond pension age.

  2. "Non-linking" awards refer to periods of IB which do not link with a previous claim to IB, although they may link with statutory sick pay.

  3. The figures include a small number of cases where the customer is resident overseas.

  4. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  5. Some people may be counted more than once if they have two awards within the year that do not link with each other.

  Source:

  Figures are taken from 1 per cent samples of cases.
  1012W

  New awards or claims of Incapacity Benefit (IB) by benefit status at a point in time up to six months before the start of the IB spell

  1/12/01 to 31/5/02

  No benefit or tax credit

  160,300

  Social security benefits with or without tax credit

  126,300

  Tax credit only

  13,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. It is not possible to determine exactly how many of those moving from no benefits/tax credits were in employment.

  Source:

  Figures taken from 5 per cent samples of the Incapacity Benefit, and Client Group Working Age data sets, for the periods shown above.

  Destinations of people leaving Incapacity Benefit

  1/9/01 to 28/2/02

  To basic State Pension / Are within 3 months of state pension age

  21,500

  To another benefit within three months2

  81,900

  To Working Families Tax Credit/Disabled Persons Tax Credit within three months3

  6,200

  Unknown, including employment

  252,700

  Total

  362,300

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Based on cases moving to Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Severe Disablement Allowance within three months of the termination of their claim to Incapacity Benefit.

  3. Figures are based on cases moving to Working Families Tax Credit, or Disabled Persons Tax Credit.

  Source:

  Figures are based on 5 per cent. samples of DWP Information Centre administrative data.

  IB recipients as a percentage of working age population

  31 May 2001

  4.3

  31 May 2002

  4.3

  Notes:

  1. Figures include a small number of cases where the customer is resident overseas.

  2. Population data are from the Office for National Statistics mid-2001 population estimates.

  3. Following the 2001 Census, revised population data for years prior to 2001 are not yet available but are due to be released in February 2003.

  Source:

  Figures are from 5 per cent samples of the benefit computer system, which excludes a small number of cases held clerically.

  Number of Incapacity Benefit (IB) awards starting in the period 1 December 2001 to 31 May 2002 where the recipient had been in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance

  (JSA) or Income Support (IS) at some time in the previous year

  Both IS and JSA

  26,100

  IS only

  37,400

  JSA only

  79,900

  Notes:

  1. Not all of these shown in the table will have moved directly from JSA or IS to IB, some will have worked in between claims.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. Includes a small number of cases where the customer is resident overseas.

  4. Excludes a small number of short duration Income Support claims.

  Source:

  Figures are taken from merges between 5 per cent. samples of the IS, JSA and IB benefit computer systems.
  1013W
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on paying incapacity benefit for fixed terms; and if he will make a statement. [86662]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have no plans to introduce fixed term awards of Incapacity Benefit. Entitlement is based, in the first instance, on an individual's contribution record and is determined thereafter by the Personal Capability Assessment, which is a functional test carried out periodically to assess an individual's ability to perform a range of every-day work-related activities.

  We believe that people moving onto Incapacity Benefits should be regarded not as people at the end of their working lives, but people with working futures. Our Green Paper, "Pathways to Work: Helping people into employment" (Cm5690) sets out our strategy for enabling people on Incapacity Benefits to move into work, and so become and remain independent. From late October 2003, we will offer in pilot areas: early, more frequent support from skilled personal advisers; direct access to a range of comprehensive specialist programmes; and clear financial incentives to work.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate has been made of the proportion of incapacity benefit claimants who are also eligible for income support; and how many people in this category receive income support. [86733]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department has made no estimate of the proportion of people claiming incapacity benefit who would be eligible for income support. However, in May 2002, there were 1,026,500 people claiming incapacity benefit and also receiving income support.

  Notes:

  1. Figure is rounded to the nearest hundred and is subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  2. Figure includes cases where people are claiming incapacity benefit, but receiving national insurance credits only.

  Source:

  Figure is based on merged five per cent. samples of Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance Quarterly Summary Statistics, May 2002, and the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2002.

  Individual Learning Account
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what alternative arrangements have been made by his Department in respect of those persons on the New Deal who would previously have received assistance via the individual learning account scheme; and if he will make a statement. [85992]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The individual learning account (ILA) programme was open to everyone aged 19 or over in England. The overall aim was to widen participation in learning and to help individuals overcome the financial barriers to learning they may have faced. ILA support could be used for non job specific career learning.

  The New Deals offer people looking for work job-focused learning and training opportunities, specifically tailored to meet their individual needs. We are providing
  1014W
  New Deal clients with the knowledge and skills they need to compete effectively in the labour market and move into work.

  The New Deal 50 plus offers clients help with training through a training grant. In January 2002 we doubled the grant to £1,500. Of this, the amount that can be used for non job specific career training was also doubled to £300.

  Intermediate Labour Programmes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many intermediate labour market programmes have received funding over the last five years; and how much they have received. [85702]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have this year launched 20 StepUP pilots offering guaranteed jobs for up to 5,000 long-term unemployed people. We are investing £40 million in the first two years of the pilot programme. The StepUP pilots are testing the use of intermediate labour markets for those who have not found work through the New Deal. The evaluation of StepUP will provide reliable evidence about the cost effectiveness of this type of intervention, and will inform decisions on the wider use of transitional employment schemes in our welfare to work strategy.
  Separately, some New Deal providers match New Deal monies with their own funds to create intermediate labour market opportunities for individual participants. Information on the number of such arrangements and the expenditure incurred is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) which local authority areas have been selected to receive additional points in respect of the Jobcentre Plus Job Entry Target set by his Department; what criteria were applied when selecting the areas; whom he consulted in respect of the selection; and if he will make a statement; [82508]

  (2) what the criteria are by which additional points are scored in relation to the Jobcentre Plus Job Entry Target scheme; and if he will make a statement; [82511]

  (3) what criteria he applied when determining the Jobcentre Plus Job Entry Target points score to be given to each type of priority client; and what guidance has been given to Jobcentre Plus staff on the way in which such clients should be prioritised in relation to (a) other priority client groups and (b) other clients. [82513]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [pursuant to his answer, 27 November 2002, Official Report, column 319W]: The Jobcentre Plus job entry targets help focus the agency's efforts and resources on helping those people on whom we want to target more support to move from welfare into work. They include lone parents, disabled people and those living in the most disadvantaged areas of the country.

  The way in which Job Entry and additional point scores have been allocated sends clear signals about our priorities to all Jobcentre Plus managers and staff who have been informed about them in writing.
  1015W
  The 60 local authority areas attracting additional Job Entry point scores are in the table. These local authorities were chosen because they either have the highest unemployment rates or the highest minority ethnic populations. We consulted other Government Departments, the National Employment Panel and key stakeholders in deciding on these criteria.

  Local authorities with lowest employment rates

  Local authorities with highest minority ethnic population

  Blaenau Gwent

  Barnet

  Caerphilly

  Birmingham

  Dundee City

  Bradford

  Ea sington

  Brent

  East Ayrshire

  Camden

  Glasgow City

  Coventry

  Hackney

  Croydon

  Halton

  Ealing

  Hartlepool

  Enfield

  Islington

  Greenwich

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Knowsley

  Haringey

  Liverpool

  Harrow

  Manchester

  Hillingdon

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Hounslow

  Middlesbrough

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Neath Port Talbot

  Kirklees

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Lambeth

  Newham

  Leeds

  North Lanarkshire

  Leicester City

  Nottingham

  Lewisham

  Pembrokeshire

  Luton

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Merton

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  Redbridge

  Salford

  Sandwell

  South Tyneside

  Sheffield

  Southwark

  Waltham Forest

  Sunderland

  Wandsworth

  Tower Hamlets

  City of Westminster

  West Dunbartonshire

  Wolverhampton

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many engagements were undertaken outside London(a) by him or his predecessor and (h) by Ministers in his Department in January (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [87344]

  New Deal for Young People

  Proportion of leavers moving into jobs by year (percentage)

  Stage of leaving New Deal

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002 (to September)

  Gateway

  49

  46

  44

  42

  40

  Employment Option

  56

  51

  51

  51

  133

  Full Time Education and Training

  38

  32

  31

  31

  29

  Voluntary Sector

  37

  33

  33

  32

  31

  Environment Task Force

  33

  30

  31

  30

  32

  1 Initial figure.

  Note:

  By definition, all jobs gained by New Deal leavers are sustained, unsubsidised jobs (ie to have left the programme, they must not re-claim Jobseeker's Allowance within 13 weeks). All figures are immediate destinations on leaving New Deal.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database
  1016W
  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 608W.

  New Deal
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people(a) aged (i) over 50 and (ii) under 30, and (b) people with disabilities have signed up to the New Deal in the Taunton Constituency. [83342]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is in the table.

  Cumulative number of participants in the New Deal in Taunton constituency

  New Deal

  Aged 50 +

  Aged under 30

  Young People (from January 1998 to September 2002)

  —

  859

  25 plus (from June 1998 to September 2002)

  158

  94

  50 plus (from April 2000 to September 2002)

  160

  —

  Lone Parents (from October 1998 to June 2002)

  20

  110

  Note:

  The numbers of participants in the New Deal for Disabled People and the New Deal for Partners are not available at constituency level.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of persons leaving(a) the gateway period and (b) each of the options in the New Deal entered (i) unsubsidised jobs and (ii) sustained jobs in each year since the establishment of the New Deal. [85988]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The tables show the proportion of all leavers from the New Deal for Young People and re-engineered New Deal 25 plus who move into sustained, unsubsidised jobs from the gateway stage of the programme and from each of the options. In addition to these job outcomes we know from survey findings that around two-thirds of young people who leave options for unknown destinations do, in fact, find work.

  For the Employment Option of the New Deal for Young People in particular, the figures prior to 2002 reflect follow-up work with employers to confirm job outcomes. This exercise will be repeated for 2002 leavers and we expect the figure of 33 per cent. to be revised in line with previous years' figures.
  1017W

  Re-engineered New Deal 25 plus

  Proportion of leavers moving into jobs by year (percentage)

  Stage of leaving New Deal

  2001 (April to December)

  2002 (January to September)

  Gateway

  33

  29

  Employment Option

  13

  12

  Basic Employability Training

  26

  18

  Self employment

  35

  32

  Education/Training Opportunity

  17

  19

  Work experience

  33

  21

  Intensive Activity Period Training

  29

  22

  Other (includes Training for Work)

  3

  13

  Notes:

  1. By definition, all jobs gained by New Deal leavers are sustained, unsubsidised jobs, (ie to have left the programme, they must not re-claim Jobseeker's Allowance within13 weeks). All figures are immediate destinations on leaving New Deal.

  2. In April 2001, New Deal 25 Plus was extended and enhanced. Annual figures for leavers moving into jobs by gateway and each option of the pre-April 2001 programme are not available. Summary figures for the programme are contained in the Statistical First Release, which is available in the Library.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many parliamentary questions to his Department were not answered during the last parliamentary Session. [88208]

  Maria Eagle
  Out of over 4,000 parliamentary questions tabled during 2001–02, just 13 remained unanswered at the end of the Session. Of these, nine were tabled in the final week.

  Retirement Ages
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, column 321W, on retirement ages, what the average age of retirement is for (a) women, and (b) men, for (i) his Department's employees, and (ii) people who work in each of the executive agencies within his department. [88213]

  Mr. McCartney
  The average age of staff, by gender, retiring from the Department and from each of the executive agencies is shown in the following table.

  Years

  Average age male

  Average age female

  DWP

  61.2

  62.4

  Jobcentre Plus

  61.0

  62.1

  The Pension Service

  60.9

  60.2

  Child Support Agency

  61.7

  62.8

  Appeals Service

  64.0

  60.0

  SchlumbergerSema
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list(a) the key performance targets and (b) other performance measures, and the levels of performance against those measures, (c) the further quality improvement measures, (d) the contractual milestones agreed for each of the key improvement projects and (e) the other contractual
  1018W
  improvements that have been secured in respect of SchlumbergerSema; and, for each of the last 12 months, on how many occasions a financial remedy has been applied to SchlumbergerSema, and how much on each of those occasions. [85382]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: A copy of the information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Service credits for failure to meet contractual service level targets have been applied in each of the last 12 months. Precise details are commercial in confidence and not disclosed under part 2, paragraph 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  SERPS
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of recent trends in the number of people who are contracted out of SERPS and the State Second Pension; and if he will make a statement. [85567]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The Department for Work and Pensions is in the process of preparing an analysis of NIRS2 data for the period 1996–97 to 2000–01 showing numbers of people contracting out of SERPS/S2P over this period. The results of this analysis will be contained in a report on "Second Tier Pension Provision" that is due to be published in the latter part of next year.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the administrative costs of the Social Fund were in each of the last five financial years; and if he will make a statement. [82079]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. 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.

  Estimates of the cost of administering the Social Fund are available for 1997–98 and 1998–99 and these are shown in the table.

  £

  Financial year

  Estimated Social Fund expenditure1

  1997–98

  1,047,000

  1998–99

  1,114,000

  Note:

  The estimated expenditure includes moneys spent on both administering the recovery of Social Fund loans as well as their payment.

  Source:

  Social Security Departmental Reports 1999–2000 (Figure 50) and 2000–01 to 2001–02 (Figure 42).

  Social Fund Repayments
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will commission research into the impact of Social Fund repayments on the(a) standard of living and (b) indebtedness of recipients of budgeting loans. [85151]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department has already carried out qualitative research on the Social Fund which included the views of budgeting loan recipients on repayment rates. Findings from this research are published in the Department's Research Report Series, Report numbers 125 and 172, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The Department's annual Families and Children Survey collects detailed information on families' and children's living standards and debt, including outstanding budgeting loans. Four reports are due to be published in the new year from the 2001 survey, one of which will focus on living standards and hardship issues. Copies of the reports will be placed in the Library as they are published.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the £10 earnings disregard for war disablements pensioners in receipt of income support was last uprated; and what has been the cumulative increase in the retail price index since that date. [86311]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: Income Support is intended to help people whose resources are insufficient to meet their day-to-day living expenses. Any income that is available to meet those expenses is normally taken fully into account. However there is a special disregard in the income-related benefits in respect of War Disablement Pension which was increased from £5 to £10 in April 1990. In addition, payments made to war disabled pensioners for their attendance or mobility needs are also disregarded in the calculation of Income Support entitlement.

  We believe that the current disregard strikes the right balance between acknowledging the special reasons for these pensions and prudent use of public funds.

  Between April 1990 and October 2002 the percentage increase in the all items retail price index has been 42.2 per cent. Income Support allowances are generally uprated using the Rossi Index which has increased by 42.8 per cent. over the same period.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) persons and (b) households in the Wansbeck constituency will receive the winter fuel payment for 2002–03. [88159]

  Mr. McCartney
  Figures for winter 2002–03 are not yet available. However, last winter 18,200 people received a winter fuel payment in the Wansbeck constituency, and we expect this year's figure to be similar.

  The exact number of households these people lived in is not available. However, 9,500 people received a £100 payment because they shared a household with at least one other eligible person, and the remaining 8,700 people each received a £200 payment.
  Source:

  Figures from Information and Analysis Directorate, using 100 per cent. extract from Matching, Intelligence and Data Analysis Service.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost of extending the winter fuel payments to those under 16 years is; and what percentage this represents of the total social security budget. [88018]

  Mr. McCartney
  We estimate that the extra cost of extending Winter Fuel Payments to households which contain at least one child under the age of 16 in Great Britain would be in the region of £1.3 billion in 2002–03. This cost is based on the assumption that no one else in the household is entitled to the payment. The cost represents around 1.2 per cent. of estimated benefit expenditure in Great Britain in 2002–03.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people entitled to one or more backdated winter fuel payments as a result of the European Court decision have received one; and how many people are entitled to make a claim for a backdated payment, but have yet to do so. [88205]

  Mr. McCartney
  Estimates show that 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.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit claimants have been sanctioned because they have refused to take part in the pilot scheme to improve the literacy and numeracy skills of long-term unemployed people. [88216]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: Between September 2001 and April 2002, we piloted a number of approaches aimed at encouraging greater take up of basic skills provision by people claiming jobseeker's allowance. These included testing different mechanisms to identify those with basic skills needs, and the use of financial incentives and/or benefit sanctions to encourage the take up of training.

  In north Nottinghamshire we piloted the use of benefit sanctions if a client refused an offer of training or left training early without good cause. In Leeds we combined the use of sanctions with financial incentives of £20 per week on top of their benefit for clients taking up training, and £100 for those achieving a basic skills qualification. In the two pilots, 1,623 clients had a possible basic skills need identified. Of these, 18 had sanctions applied, three because they failed to attend a basic skills assessment and 15 because they failed to attend training or left early without good cause.

  Child Care
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to assist with child care arrangements to enable parents to take up employment; [87667]

  (2) what plans his Department has to ease the transition from welfare to work for mothers with young children. [87668]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We believe that work is the best route out of poverty, but recognise that parents can face difficulties moving into work due to the demands of balancing their work, life and family responsibilities. That is why we are providing extra help to reduce these problems and allow parents to successfully move into work.

  Help with child care costs for people looking for work is available across Great Britain through our welfare to work initiatives, such as the New Deal. For example, the New Deal for Lone Parents can provide assistance when participants attend training or take up part-time work. We are also enhancing the child care support available through Jobcentre Plus. From April 2003, a Childcare Partnership Manager will be established in every Jobcentre Plus district to ensure that jobseekers with children and their advisers have access to the latest information about child care in their area.
  1022W
  For lone parents who are moving into work of over 16 hours per week, the Working Families Tax Credit (and from April 2003 the Working Tax Credit) includes the Childcare Tax Credit which can pay for up to 70 per cent. of their child care costs. New Deal Personal Advisers can also use the Adviser Discretion Fund to help pay for advance child care deposits if the lone parent is unable to do so.

  We have also recently announced an improved package of financial measures to help people make the transition into work. From October 2004 we will be introducing a new Job Grant to help people moving into a job after at least six months on benefit. Single people and couples without children will receive £100. A higher rate Grant of £250 will be paid to lone parents and to couples with children. This improved Job Grant will make a real difference in helping tide families over until their first wages are received.

  In 1998 we launched our National Childcare Strategy for England. This aims to ensure that good quality, affordable child care for children up to age 14 (and 16 for children with special educational needs and disabilities) is available in every neighbourhood.

  Since 1997, there has been a major expansion in child care provision. In England over 553,000 new child care places have been created, benefiting more than a million children. A number of Government programmes, including the Neighbourhood Childcare Initiative, are helping to extend provision in the most disadvantaged areas of the country. We are now also encouraging schools to provide and host a range of services, including child care, for the local community through our new Extended Schools programme. The 2002 Spending Review saw a doubling of child care funding to create a further 250,000 places, in new Children's Centres in disadvantaged areas and elsewhere, by 2006. This is on top of the existing target of creating new provision for 1.6 million children by 2004.

  Responsibility for policy relating to the development of child care in Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved administrations.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for 'Work and Pensions how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum, how much will be spent in Ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88137]

  Mr. McCartney
  Public funds have not been used for entertaining and Christmas decorations in private offices. Christmas cards for Ministers to issue in their official capacity have been purchased at a cost of £1,619.34. Gathering information to answer for the rest of this Department could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, any expenditure incurred on decorations, entertainment and any other festive activities is strictly for official purposes only, and is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting". The Department has no official residences.

  Disabled People
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help disabled people back to work. [87669]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Disabled people can take part in the mainstream Jobcentre Plus employment and training programmes, and have full access to all its services. In addition, Jobcentre Plus has a range of specialist employment programmes to support disabled people who want to work. The Access to Work programme provides advice and practical help for disabled people with the additional employment costs, for example, in travelling to work, adapting the work place, obtaining special equipment and support workers, which result from disability. WORKSTEP provides job support to disabled people who face more complex barriers to finding and keeping work.

  Our New Deal for Disabled People is the first national programme designed specifically to support people with health conditions and disabilities move into and keep jobs. Since the national extension of the programme began, it has helped over 6,000 people into jobs and nearly 28,000 have registered with job brokers to actively pursue employment. Disabled people can also take part in other Jobcentre Plus employment programmes, and have full access to all its services.

  Our Green Paper, "Pathways to Work: Helping People into Employment' (Cm 5690), sets out our strategy for enabling people with health problems and disabilities to move into work, and so become and remain independent. From late October 2003, we will offer in pilot areas: early, more frequent support from skilled personal advisers; direct access to a range of comprehensive specialist programmes; and clear financial incentives to work.

  Employment (Disability)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what financial assistance he makes available to specialist employment providers and agencies in the fields of(a) physical disability, (b) learning difficulties and (c) mental illness. [88331]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus has a range of specialist programmes for people with disabilities, providing support in finding, keeping and training for work. In order to deliver this provision, Jobcentre Plus

  Habitual residency test (HRT) Brighton and Hove social security offices1

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total number of HRT decisions made

  1,509

  1,398

  1,272

  876

  613

  Total number of appeals submitted against HRT decisions

  67

  32

  43

  12

  15

  Total number of UK citizens found to have no entitlement to benefit following an HRT decision2

  74

  116

  57

  44

  60

  1 These offices make decisions on all HRT cases for claims made through Brighton Phoenix, Brighton Pavilion, Hove, Newhaven, Lewes and Brighton Regent Jobcentres. It is not possible to disaggregate the figures for individual Jobcentres.

  2 Figures include cases where the original decision has been upheld on appeal.

  Source:

  Management Information Statistics Program (MISP) and local office data.
  1024W
  contracts with a range of specialist providers through the access to work, work preparation, WORKSTEP and residential training programmes.

  These programmes are available to people with all disabilities; however, in some parts of the country there are also programmes designed specifically for people with learning difficulties, brain injuries and muscular skeletal conditions.

  Gas Pipes
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of the gas mains network operated by Transco is over(a) 30, (b) 50 and (c) 75 years old. [87485]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I am informed by the Health and Safety Executive that detailed information is unavailable. However, it was estimated in September 2001, when HSE announced the accelerated iron mains replacement programme that most iron mains—about 60 per cent.—were over 40 years old; and some were over 100 years old.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment the Heath and Safety Executive has made of Transco's system of record keeping for the gas mains network; and if he will make a statement. [87487]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I am informed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) that they have met with Transco to discuss their arrangements for data handling, the last occasion being 21 November 2002. Their arrangements have been subject to an internal audit. HSE have asked for an independent review of compliance with and the quality of the arrangements themselves.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) decisions were made and (b) appeals were submitted in relation to the habitual residence test in respect of the area covered by the Brighton Phoenix, Brighton Pavilion and Hove Jobcentre Plus offices in each year between 1997 and 2001–02; and how many of the people who lost benefit in relation to the habitual residents test were UK citizens. [86119]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table:

  Jobcentres (Advertisements)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what circumstances names and addresses of employers advertising in jobcentres are withheld; and why. [87456]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Names and addresses of employers advertising in jobcentres are withheld from members of the public responding to the advertised vacancies in two circumstances:where a job is advertised to work in a private household and the householder has requested that their home address is not immediately disclosed for reasons of safety and privacy, and;
  where a job is notified by an employment agency acting on behalf of, or contracted to supply workers to, a third party employer. This is to ensure that jobseekers do not go directly to the end employer who has specifically commissioned the agency to act on their behalf.

  Jobseekers Allowance
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been refused all Jobseekers Allowance payments after interview in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion this represented of those interviewed. [86957]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available. All people claiming Jobseekers Allowance are required to attend an initial jobseeker's interview. However the data collected by the Department do not distinguish between decisions on entitlement made as a result of such an interview and those made at another stage, for example following the processing of the benefit application. Nor do the data distinguish between decisions on entitlement made at the start of a claim and those made during the course of a claim.

  Lone Parents
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of lone parents are in work in(a) the Scottish Borders, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK. [85697]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the table:

  Employment rate for lone parents

  Area

  Percentage

  Scottish Borders

  1 Not available

  Scotland

  56.0

  United Kingdom

  53.3

  1 The sample size is too small to make a realistic estimate of the employment rate of lone parents in the Scottish Borders.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of the population and estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  2. Families with unknown economic status are excluded.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey—spring 2002

  Maxwell Communications Pension Plan
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the outcome of his Department's discussions with representatives of the Maxwell Communications Pension Plan. [88315]
  1026W
  Mr. McCartney
  The Government are aware of the difficulties surrounding the Maxwell Communications Pension Plan and sympathise with those affected.

  We have had discussions with the Independent Trustee of the Plan, The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc. The difficulties faced by the Plan are not connected to Maxwell's original fraud but reflect the subsequent performance of the pension fund in relation to the scheme's liabilities. As we have made clear to Law Debenture, this is an issue for the trustees, not the Government.

  Medical Assessments
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what procedures are in place to assess the performance of doctors employed by Schlumberger Sema to carry out medical assessment of benefit applicants on behalf of Jobcentre Plus. [87301]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Doctors must demonstrate they have achieved a satisfactory standard before being approved by the Chief Medical Adviser to carry out assessments on behalf of the Department. Ongoing approval is dependent upon the doctor maintaining a satisfactory standard. We therefore have stringent procedures in place to assess their performance.

  A doctor's work can be audited if their work is reported to be deficient or if they are subject to significant levels of complaint and, in addition, cases are randomly selected for audit on an ongoing monthly basis.

  All complaints made regarding the manner or conduct of a doctor are investigated to ensure that examining doctors have followed the professional standards laid down by Medical Services, and consideration is given to any complaints made and their nature when reviewing the performance of individual doctors.

  The Department and Medical Services also undertake a number of validation exercises to ensure that these systems are sufficiently robust and that the performance of doctors acting on behalf of the Department is effectively assessed.

  New Deal
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many New Deal participants have found(a) employment and (b) sustained employment in the Civil Service in each year of the New Deal to date; which Government departments and agencies have employed New Deal participants; what the (i) number of employees and (ii) duration of employment were in each case; and what customised gateways have been established for Government Departments and agencies; [85985]

  (2) how many New Deal participants found work in his Department (a) in the year to April 2000, (b) in the year to April 2001, (c) in the year to April 2002 and (d) in the most recent period for which figures are available. [87003]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answers 9 December 2002 and 12 December 2002]: The available information is in the table.
  1027W

  New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus starts in Government Departments (including agencies) by financial year

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2000–02

  2002–031

  Cabinet Office

  9

  4

  13

  6

  0

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  6

  5

  57

  60

  17

  Privy Council Office

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Charity Commission

  5

  13

  13

  11

  1

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Ministry of Defence

  7

  88

  43

  16

  24

  Department for Education and Skills

  12

  77

  51

  8

  0

  Office for Standards in Education

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  5

  33

  35

  35

  3

  Intervention Board

  2

  1

  1

  0

  —

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  3

  1

  5

  2

  0

  Government Communications Headquarters

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Department of Health

  8

  19

  30

  18

  2

  Home Office

  1

  72

  26

  38

  5

  Department for International Development

  0

  1

  6

  0

  0

  Law Officers' Departments

  0

  10

  11

  2

  0

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  0

  21

  34

  33

  3

  National Assembly for Wales

  5

  28

  3

  5

  0

  Northern Ireland Office

  0

  11

  3

  0

  0

  Scottish Executive (includes Scottish Office)

  12

  19

  33

  40

  6

  Registers of Scotland

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Department of Trade and Industry

  22

  21

  26

  12

  1

  Health and Safety Executive

  0

  6

  12

  17

  5

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Office of Water Services (OFWAT)

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Ordnance Survey

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (NDPB wef 1.2.01)

  0

  0

  1

  0

  —

  HM Treasury

  2

  0

  2

  3

  4

  Office of Government Commerce

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  HM Customs and Excise

  1

  34

  77

  32

  1

  Inland Revenue (includes NICO and Valuation Office Agency)

  4

  252

  145

  169

  3

  Office for National Statistics

  0

  10

  1

  0

  0

  Royal Mint

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Department for Work and Pensions

  356

  1,758

  1,177

  929

  120

  Total

  471

  2,486

  1,811

  1,437

  197

  1 2002–03 figures are to 1 July 2002.

  Notes:

  Figures for the other New Deals are not available. Information on the duration of employment is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Customised New Deal gateways were piloted in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Trade and Industry and the former Benefits Agency.

  Source:

  Cabinet Office

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of the New Deal for Lone Parents. [87670]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The New Deal is delivering services tailored to meet the needs of individual lone parents and giving them the skills, support and confidence they need to move into work. By the end of September 2002, the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) had helped over 160,000 lone parents to find jobs. There has been on-going evaluation of the programme and a number of evaluation reports have been published and placed in the Library. A report of further evaluation concerning the quantitative impact of NDLP is due to be published in spring 2003.

  NDLP is just one of many measures that we have introduced to help lone parents gain independence through moving into work. Together they have helped reduce the number of lone parents dependant on income support by over 15 per cent. since May 1997.
  1028W
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment his Department has made of the effect the new deal has had on youth unemployment. [87671]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1997, youth unemployment has fallen by more than a third and long-term youth unemployment has been reduced by nearly three-quarters. The new deal for young people has played an important part in this success, helping almost 400,000 young people off benefit and into jobs, and improving the work prospects of many more.

  Independent research by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research found that the number of young people unemployed for six months or more would be twice as high without the new deal. It also found that the new deal had increased youth employment and had had a positive knock-on effect on employment among other age groups.
  1029W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) pursuant to his answer of 11 December,Official Report, column 377W, on the New Deal, what adjustment has been made to the Government's expenditure plans as a result of the difference between spending on the Environmental Task Force and the amount budgeted by the former Department for Education and Employment for the period 1998 to 2002; [88095]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 11 December, Official Report, column 377W, on the New Deal, why details of expenditure on the Environment Task Force in 2001–02 are not yet available; when the figure will be made available; and if he will make a statement; [88096]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 11 December, Official Report, column 377W, if he will make a statement on the reasons for the difference in the number of young people participating in the Environment Task Force option and the target figure given by the former Department for Education and Employment in DfEE Press Release 009 of 1998. [88138]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Due to the strength of the economy and the success of the New Deal for Young People long-term youth unemployment has been virtually eradicated. The number of young people accessing New Deal opportunities has therefore been lower than was anticipated in 1998. This has also resulted in underspends against original planning assumptions for the programme. These underspends have been used to support other welfare to work initiatives. Environment Task Force opportunities and those on the other options continue to be available for New Deal clients who need this type of help to move into work.

  The Department's accounts for 2001–02 are currently being finalised and are expected to be published early in 2003. The Environment Task Force expenditure figure will be available then.

  19981

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20022

  Number of people leaving during the advisory process(including the Gateway)

  13,320

  110,870

  112,870

  64,830

  2,940

  Number of people who progressed to follow-through

  700

  8,130

  10,000

  5,820

  1,070

  Number of people who left to return to jobseeker's allowance3

  2,680

  68,210

  76,450

  47,380

  3,110

  1 New Deal 25 plus was introduced nationally in June 1998.

  2 To September.

  3 Among leavers from all stages of the New Deal.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Re-engineered New Deal 25 plus

  20011

  20022

  Number of people leaving during the advisory process (including the Gateway)

  33,400

  54,700

  Number of people who progressed to follow through

  2,850

  20,240

  Number of leavers returning to jobseeker's allowance

  36,000

  23,900

  1030W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2002,Official Report, column 377W, on the new deal, (1) how many of the 6,800 young people who secured subsidised employment starts in the construction industry subsequently secured (a) unsubsidised employment and (b) unsubsidised sustained employment; and if he will make a statement; [88097]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the difference in the number of subsidised employment starts in the construction industry under the new deal and that predicted by the former Department for Education and Employment in DFEE Press Release 70 of 1998. [88098]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Due to the strength of the economy and the success of the new deal for young people long-term youth unemployment has been virtually eradicated. The number of young people accessing subsidised employment opportunities in the construction industry has therefore been lower than was anticipated in 1998. However, opportunities continue to be available for new deal clients who need help through subsidised employment to move into work.

  We estimate that 6,800 people have started subsidised employment in the construction industry since 1998. Of these, around 3,000 subsequently moved into an unsubsidised job, some 2,800 of which were sustained. Information on the type of industry within which a subsidised job takes place is incomplete. It is likely, therefore, that these are underestimates of the number of people taking up work in the construction industry through the subsidised employment option of the new deal.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people on New Deal 25 Plus schemes(a) left after the initial advisory stage, (b) progressed to follow-through and (c) returned to claim jobseeker's allowance, in each year since 1997. [86678]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the tables. In April 2001, New Deal 25 plus was extended and enhanced, to provide a flexible, more individually-tailored service to help more long-term unemployed people find jobs and remain in them.

  1 From April.

  2 From September

  3 Among leavers from all stages of the New Deal.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to publish the evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents; and if he will make a statement. [85989]
  1031W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The evaluation of the prototype of the New Deal for Lone Parents was published on 3 March 2000. Follow up reports and research on the national phase of the programme have been published since then, and new items of research are published as they are completed. We expect to publish a report, bringing together findings from all strands of the evaluation, in spring 2003.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of participants in the New Deal for Young People from Ethnic Minorities found(a) jobs and (b) sustained jobs in each year since 1997, broken down by ethnic group. [85984]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The information is in the tables.

  1998

  All jobs

  Sustained

  Number

  Per cent. of starts

  Number

  Per cent. of starts

  Black—Caribbean

  2,780

  46

  1,890

  32

  Black—African

  1,410

  39

  950

  26

  Black—Other

  1,240

  46

  840

  31

  Indian

  1,920

  52

  1,530

  41

  Pakistani

  2,980

  45

  2,280

  35

  Bangladeshi

  1,030

  47

  810

  37

  Chinese

  180

  44

  150

  36

  Mixed/Other

  2,170

  46

  1,620

  34

  Total

  13,720

  46

  10,060

  34

  1999

  All jobs

  Sustained

  Number

  Per cent, of starts

  Number

  Per cent, of starts

  Black—Caribbean

  2,420

  48

  1,730

  35

  Black—African

  1,090

  40

  760

  28

  Black—Other

  1,030

  48

  730

  34

  Indian

  1,800

  52

  1,440

  42

  Pakistani

  2,880

  46

  2,220

  36

  Bangladeshi

  940

  49

  790

  41

  Chinese

  180

  47

  150

  39

  Mixed/Other

  2,110

  45

  1,600

  34

  Total

  12,440

  47

  9,420

  36

  2000

  All jobs

  Sustained

  Number

  Per cent, of starts

  Number

  Per cent, of starts

  Black—Caribbean

  2,510

  52

  1,770

  37

  Black—African

  1,270

  44

  900

  31

  Black—Other

  1,140

  52

  820

  38

  Indian

  1,680

  55

  1,370

  45

  Pakistani

  2,990

  49

  2,380

  39

  Bangladeshi

  980

  49

  800

  40

  Chinese

  160

  46

  130

  37

  Mixed/Other

  2,300

  47

  1,770

  36

  Total

  13,020

  50

  9,940

  38

  1032W

  2001

  All jobs

  Sustained

  Number

  Per cent, of starts

  Number

  Per cent, of starts

  Black—Caribbean

  2,180

  48

  1,540

  34

  Black—African

  1,330

  41

  930

  28

  Black—Other

  960

  45

  710

  33

  Indian

  1,520

  54

  1,250

  44

  Pakistani

  2,660

  46

  2,070

  35

  Bangladeshi

  870

  45

  700

  37

  Chinese

  140

  46

  110

  35

  Mixed/Other

  2,480

  43

  1,880

  33

  Total

  12,150

  46

  9,200

  35

  2002 (to September 2002)

  All jobs

  Sustained

  Number

  Per cent, of starts

  Number

  Per cent, of starts

  Black—Caribbean

  1,430

  37

  1,000

  26

  Black—African

  860

  25

  650

  19

  Black—Other

  540

  34

  400

  25

  Indian

  950

  42

  760

  34

  Pakistani

  1,590

  34

  1,220

  26

  Bangladeshi

  520

  32

  420

  26

  Chinese

  90

  33

  90

  30

  Mixed/Other

  1,870

  28

  1,480

  22

  Total

  7,850

  32

  6,010

  25

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for WorkMixed/Other and Pensions (1) what the total expenditure of(a) his and (b) its agencies was on official travelling in 2001–02; [84789]

  (2) what the total budget of (a) his Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03. [84941]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [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 I April 2001 to 31 March 2002 were 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 Library.

  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 Library.

  In respect of travel by officials of the Department, the figures for expenditure in 2001–02 and budget for 2002–03 are set out in the following table.

  £ million

  Expenditure 2001–02

  Total Department

  61.4

  Benefits Agency

  19.0

  Child Support Agency

  3.8

  The Appeals Service

  0.6

  Employment Service

  23.6

  Corporate Centre

  14.4

  1033W

  £ Million

  Budget 2002–03

  Total Department

  69.0

  Jobcentre Plus

  42.4

  Child Support Agency

  3.5

  The Appeals Service

  0.6

  The Pension Service

  4.0

  Corporate Centre

  18.5

  Notes:

  1.Following the significant restructuring of DWP the Benefits Agency discontinued its operations. Its functions dispersed between the newly formed agencies Jobcentre Plus and Pension Service, and the corporate centre. It is not possible therefore to make direct, like for like comparisons between expenditure and budget figures.

  2.The Child Benefit Centre and Disability and Carer Services formerly within BA are, with effect from 1 April 2002, accounted within the DWP Corporate Centre. Pensions and Overseas Directorate and all work in ex-DSS relating to pensions is now carried out by The Pension Service. The remainder of BA and the Employment Service integrated to form Jobcentre Plus.

  3.The Health and Safety Executive and Health and Safety Laboratory has recently moved into DWP under a machinery of Government change. The budget figures for HSE/HSL are not included.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since 1 October 2002; and what percentage received a substantive reply on the requested date. [86993]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: From 1 October, out of 675 questions tabled to my right hon. Friend for written answer, 246 questions were for answer on a named day up to and including 12 December. Of these, 154–63 per cent.—received a substantive reply on the named day. During the same period, the hon. Member tabled 74 questions to the Department, all of them for answer on a named day. Up to 12 December substantive replies had been issued in respect of 45 of them in an average time of 4.75 working days.

  We are committed to providing hon. Members with timely and accurate answers to parliamentary questions, although where questions prompt further analysis it is not always possible to provide information to the named day deadlines.

  Unemployment (Copeland)
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were unemployed in Copeland in(a) May 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available; what proposals he has to reduce that number; and if he will make a statement. [87142]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: Economic stability and active labour market programmes have helped people move from welfare to work in all parts of the country. As a result of our policies the number of people in work is at record levels and unemployment has fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s.

  In my right hon. Friend's constituency, between May 1997 and October 2002 the number of people unemployed and claiming benefit fell from 2,784 to
  1034W
  1,382 (a reduction of 50 per cent) and long term unemployment has fallen by 75 per cent. Over the same period the New Deal has helped over 1,800 people in Copeland into jobs.

  We know that even within areas of prosperity there are pockets of persistent unemployment. That is why we have introduced additional measures—such as Action Teams for Jobs and Employment Zones—targeted on the most employment-deprived wards in the country.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) discussions his Department has held with the Treasury and (b) sanctions have been imposed on his Department in respect of his Department's performance in meeting targets set for its predecessor departments in public service agreements dating from (i) 1998 and (ii) 2000; and if he will make a statement. [88054]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: The Department has regular and ongoing discussions with the Treasury on its public service agreement targets and continues to make good progress towards meeting them, as reported in its Departmental Report for 2002 (Cm 5424), and in its Autumn Performance Report (Cm 5660). Therefore no sanctions have been imposed in respect of performance against any of my Department's or its predecessor's departmental targets.

  State Pension
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have opted to defer receiving their state pension, and how many pensioners in total have received increments in each year since 1992. [88204]

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

  We estimate that around 3 per cent. of people who reached state pension age five years ago deferred claiming their basic state pension. On average, these individuals deferred their basic state pension for almost two years.

  The table shows the number of pensioners receiving increments in each year.

  Thousands

  March 2002

  1.163.1

  March 2001

  1,193.6

  March 2000

  1,221.2

  Notes:

  1.Figures are taken from a 5 per cent. sample.

  2.Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3.Figures include own and inherited increments and all components.

  4.Comparative figures are not available prior to September 1999.

  Source:

  Pension Strategy and Computer System at 31 March of each year.

  Notes:

  1.Estimates are based on the latest March 2002 RP admin data and the Government Actuary's Department mid-year population estimates.

  2.Figures are for Great Britain.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the figures for tax credit expenditure in the benefits expenditure table at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/Tablel are gross and include all tax credit expenditure. [81950]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The figures for tax credits include all personal tax credits (Working Families Tax Credit, Disabled Person's Tax Credit, Children's Tax Credit, Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit) classified by the Office for National Statistics as public expenditure in the National Accounts. Further details on the classification of personal tax credits can be found in Box C2 of the 2002 Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC592).

  Unemployment
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress on the target to halve unemployment among 18 to 24 year olds by 2010 throughout the European Union, set at the European Council's meeting in Lisbon. [88218]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There is no target for EU unemployment among 18 to 24 year olds. The Presidency Conclusions from the European Council held in Lisbon in March 2000 set a target that the number of 18 to 24 year olds with only lower secondary level education who are not in further education and training should be halved by 2010.

  Three employment rate targets were agreed at Lisbon and Stockholm on total employment (70 per cent.), female employment (60 per cent.) and older worker employment (50 per cent.). The UK is one of the best performing member states in the EU, with one of the highest employment rates in the EU 15 (71.7 per cent. in the UK in 2001 compared with an EU average of 63.9 per cent.). The UK is one of only three member states to currently exceed all three of the 2010 employment targets.

  The UK performs well in terms of young people as well, with the second highest youth employment rate at 56.9 per cent. in 2001, well above the EU 15 average of 40.7 per cent. This reflects the effectiveness of policies such as New Deal in helping young people in the UK to move from welfare to work. Current Eurostat figures show that between October 2000 and October 2001, unemployment in the EU for 15 to 24 year olds fell from 14.9 per cent. to a low of 14.7 per cent., before rising again to 15.1 per cent. in October 2002.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many men aged 60 to 64 received a winter fuel payment in each of the last two winters; and how many men in this age group have applied for a payment for this year. [88200]

  Mr. McCartney
  Around 1.1 million men aged 60 to 64 received winter fuel payments in each of the last two winters (2000–01 and 2001–02). This winter, men aged 60 to 64 will have received a winter fuel payment automatically if they were receiving a social security benefit (excluding child benefit, housing benefit and 1036W
  council tax benefit) in the qualifying week, or they had received a winter fuel payment last year and their circumstances had not changed. People who are not entitled to an automatic payment need to make a claim. We are currently unable to identify the number of men in this age group who have claimed so far this year, but we may be able to do so by May 2003 once the final administrative data is available.

  Work Opportunities (Older People)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress he has made in supporting work opportunities for older women. [83642]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: New Deal 50 plus offers personal advice, jobsearch help, and back to work financial support through an Employment Credit for clients on taking up either full-time or part- time work. We are ensuring that New Deal 50 plus offers effective back to work help for women over 50 by making partners, as well as the main benefit recipient, eligible for help through the programme. By October 2002, New Deal 50 plus had helped 26,780 women back into work—a third of all clients moving into work through the programme.

  We are encouraging employers to realise the benefits of employing older workers through our Age Positive campaign. The campaign raises employer awareness through events, awards, initiatives, guidance and publications such as 'Good Practice in Recruiting and Retaining Older Workers' (DWP December 2001). We are also encouraging employers to adopt more flexible approaches to retirement to give individuals more choice and opportunity to stay in work longer. This can be important for those women who want to stay in work longer and also move from full-time to part-time work. The Green Paper on pensions, which we published on 17 December, includes proposals to support the development of flexible retirement. We will also reinforce our commitment to tackle age discrimination in employment by implementing age legislation covering employment and vocational training by 2006.

  Earlier this month we had Age Positive Week which included a range of events to further raise awareness of the benefits of employing older men and women as part of an age diverse workforce. On 3 December we also launched an updated Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment, which includes a range of new good practice case studies for employers.

  Our policies have contributed to a rise of 4.6 percentage points in the employment rate of women aged 50 to state pension age since 1997, to 65.6 per cent. This increase is greater than the increase in the overall employment rate of women, which stood at 69.7 per cent in spring 2002.

HEALTH

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which abattoirs in the South West have a licence to remove and test the spinal columns of animals slaughtered under the Beef Assurance Scheme. [85371]
  1037W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: All licensed abattoirs are permitted to slaughter Beef Assurance Scheme over 30 month cattle, provided they are willing to facilitate their testing for BSE. On receipt of a negative test result, the carcase must be sent to a licensed cutting plant that is separately licensed to remove the vertebral column and dorsal root ganglia before the meat is released for human consumption. All licensed cutting plants are free to apply to the Food Standards Agency for an additional licence to remove vertebral column. It is a simple process, no fee is charged, and all have been encouraged to apply. None has done so in the south-west peninsular.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions his Department issued to acute trusts on planning bed allocations to reduce the length of waiting times in accident and emergency units. [87530]

  Mr. Lammy
  Creating more capacity in hospitals is key to reducing long waits to be admitted to a bed from accident and emergency. Over the last two years, the number of beds have increased, reversing a 40 year decline.

  The Department has not issued any specific instructions to acute trusts regarding bed allocations to reduce the length of waiting times in accident and emergency departments.

  As part of routine capacity planning each national health service trust needs to establish the levels of occupancy required for different specialties and types of care, depending on their own particular circumstances. Appropriate levels of occupancy will depend on a number of factors including specialty, the balance between emergency and planned admissions and the size of the hospital.

  Acute Hospitals (Nurse Training)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS nurses are trained to deliver minor injury and assessment services in acute hospitals. [87537]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of nurses trained to deliver minor injury and assessment services is not collected centrally.

  Acute Trusts (Nurses)
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level is of nurse understaffing in England's acute trusts. [87767]

  Mr. Hutton
  Levels of staffing are a matter for individual trusts. The three month vacancy rate is an indicator of the number of posts in their establishment which trusts are finding difficult to fill.

  Information on the level of three month vacancies in acute trusts in England will be placed in the Library.

  Between March 2001 and 2002 the three month vacancy rate for qualified nurses fell from 3.4 per cent., to 3.1 per cent. This is the second successive fall for nurse vacancies and shows that our recruitment and retention policies are bearing fruit.

  Adult Placement Schemes
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about the regulation of adult placement schemes; and if he will make a statement. [82049]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have recently received representations from the national association of adult placement services and others about the regulation of adult placement schemes. We have carried out a thorough review of these issues and intend to propose changes to the way in which both adult placement carers and the schemes that manage them are regulated. We will be consulting on this shortly.

  Agency Nurses
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the figures for spending on agency nurses by the NHS in 2001–02 will be available. [85415]

  Mr. Hutton
  Fully validated information for spending on agency nurses by the national health service in 2001–02 will be available in February 2003. Information for 2000–01 is available and I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 7 November 2002,Official Report, column 538W.

  Alcohol Reduction Strategy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses he has received to the national alcohol reduction strategy consultation paper. [87578]

  Ms Blears
  37 formal responses to the national alcohol harm reduction strategy had been received by the end of Tuesday 17 December 2002. The consultation began on 15 October 2002 and will run until 15 January 2003.

  The Department of Health and the Cabinet Office strategy unit (COSU) have also held four regional consultation events in London, Newcastle, Manchester and Bristol to allow key stakeholders to discuss the issues and to put their views forward. Additionally, the COSU holds informal, on-going meetings with key stakeholders to ensure that their views can be fed into the work on the strategy at all stages of its development.

  Antipsychotic Drugs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the age-standardised prescription ratio was of(a) atypical and (b) typical antipsychotic drugs in each primary care trust area in each month during the period from 1 April to 31 October; and what the national averages were. [86370]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally. However, information on the estimated number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for antipsychotics by broad age group for the 28 strategic health authorities for April to September 2002 has been placed in the Library.

  Assisted Dying
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the frequency of assisted dying in the UK in the last 10 years. [87034]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have no information about the frequency of assisted dying because it is an illegal act, if this means a deliberate intervention to end life. It is not for the Department to undertake any investigation into this matter, as this is a matter for the Criminal Justice Service.

  Bed Availability (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available within the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust on(a) 2 December, (b) 11 December and (c) the most recent date for which he has information; and if he will make a statement. [88010]

  Mr. Lammy
  The daily situation reports by trusts do not list the total number of beds available within each hospital. The following answer therefore gives the number of beds that were not available on the days in question.

  On 2 December, one ward at the Worcester Royal Hospital, with five unoccupied beds, was closed to admissions because of an outbreak of diarrhoea and vomiting (D&V), but it reopened during the day.

  On 11 December, two wards were closed at the Alexandra Hospital, with five unoccupied beds, due to an outbreak of D&V.

  On 17 December, the latest available date, six beds were closed due to staffing shortages at Worcester.

  The bed closures should be seen in the overall context of some 900 beds (for all purposes) in the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust. The West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority is working closely with and monitoring the performance of the trust under the normal processes of winter planning and situation reporting.

  Blood Donations
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many years in retrospect the Government will ban recipients of blood from donating blood in the future; and when he will publish his findings on this issue. [86268]

  Ms Blears
  The Government's advisory committee on the microbiological safety of blood and tissues for transplantation asked the Department's economics and operational research division to assess the impact of excluding transfusion recipients from donating blood on possible secondary infections of variant CJD, assuming blood to be infective. This risk assessment is still in progress and consequently no decision has been taken into the possible exclusion of transfusion recipients giving blood.

  Body Part Imports
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend the licensing regime for the importation of human body tissue to corpses and other body parts; and if he will make a statement. [87314]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: There are currently no formal controls on the import of human tissue to the United Kingdom for teaching, education, research or other non-therapeutic purposes. The Government are considering this matter as part of their current review of the law on human tissue and organs. As an interim measure, we published a draft code of practice on the import and export of human body parts, in July. Consultation on this ended in October and we shall publish a slightly revised code shortly.

  Cancer Screening
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend screening programmes to forms of common cancers other than breast and cervical. [86573]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Cancer Plan stated that the government would extend and roll out new screening programmes, where it is clear that screening reduces mortality.

  The National Health Service breast screening programmes is being expanded to invite all women aged 65 to 70 by 2004.

  On 5 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health reaffirmed his commitment to introduce a national screening programme for colorectal cancer. The national cancer director will be working with all the relevant experts to determine the best way forward, taking account of experience from the current pilots.

  We are committed to introducing a screening programme for prostate cancer if an when screening and treatment techniques are sufficiently well developed. There is no evidence from any country that screening for prostate cancer saves lives, but his is kept constantly under review by the national screening committee.

  Care Costs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost per week is of(a) keeping a person in hospital and (b) keeping a person in a nursing home. [84807]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: The average cost per week in 2000–01 of keeping a person in hospital is calculated as £1,000 and of keeping that person in a nursing home is calculated as £384.

  Care Homes (Insurance Cover)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide assistance to care homes whose(a) premiums for public and employer's liability insurance cover have risen significantly and (b) cover has been withdrawn; and if he will make a statement. [88040]
  1041W
  Jacqui Smith
  Care home places are commissioned by local councils. The Department is aware that some providers have had difficulty in negotiating public and private employers liability insurance premiums, and has contributed evidence to a cross-Whitehall group which is looking into this issue. This has led to a review of the current employers' liabilities compulsory insurance announced in the Pre-Budget report.

  Children in Care
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is reviewing public service agreements relating to the educational achievements of children in care. [84028]

  Jacqui Smith
  The social exclusion unit is currently reviewing the Government's public service agreement targets in consultation with the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and other Departments with an interest. This review of current targets is part of the social exclusion unit's wider study into raising the educational attainment of young people in public care.

  Children in Temporary Accommodation
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regular health checks are carried out on children living in temporary accommodation. [87186]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local primary care trusts are responsible for the timing, frequency and content of health checks in childhood. These will vary according to the needs of the individual child. There is, however, a recommended core programme contained in the publication "Health for all Children", which includes the number and content of health checks for children. This programme has been developed to maximise the capability of every child to have the opportunity to realise their full potential in terms of good health, well being and development and to assist primary health care teams to determine their approach. The core programme is currently under review.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received NHS chiropody services in each year from 1997 to 2002. [87678]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The number of people who received chiropody services was as follows:

  Year

  First contacts (thousands)

  1996–97

  2,420

  1997–98

  2,383

  1998–99

  2,381

  1999–2000

  2,321

  2000–01

  2,247

  2001–02

  2,278

  Source:

  Department of Health annual return KT23.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has issued guidance on chiropody services; and what plans the NICE has to issue guidance on NHS chiropody services in the future. [87679]
  1042W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has not issued guidance specifically on chiropody services and has no plans to issue such guidance in the near future.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what framework governs standards of provision of chiropody services in the NHS. [87682]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: Primary care trusts are responsible for planning and securing the provision of the totality of care and services that their population needs. The Health Professions Council is responsible for setting and maintaining standards of professional training, performance and conduct of the 12 health care professions that it regulates, including chiropody. National service frameworks may include standards relevant to the provision of chiropody services.

  Community Initiatives
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community five-a-day initiatives have been established since the five pilot sites reported. [84014]

  Ms Blears
  The five-a-day local community initiatives aim to increase the consumption of fruit and vegetables by improving access and availability. Following the five pilot initiatives, there will be 66 new five-a-day local community initiatives, based in the most deprived areas of England, supported by the new opportunities fund. Grants for the first four initiatives have been awarded and grants for the other initiatives are currently under consideration. The majority of these programmes should be starting up from spring 2003.

  In addition, initiatives to increase fruit and vegetable consumption may be funded through health action zones, sure start, healthy living centres and through general funding allocations to primary care trusts.

  Continuing NHS Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that health authorities comply with guidance issued in booklet 252535 that a written care plan is to be given to patients or the family before they move out of an NHS hospital to a nursing home; [87543]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure, that strategic health authorities should determine whether there were patients who were wrongly refused funding for continuing care and make the necessary arrangements for reimbursing the costs they incurred unnecessarily and that health trusts reimburse self-funders and social services for costs incurred unnecessarily by social services clients and self-funding care home residents; [87546]

  (3) if he will revise the paragraph, continuing NHS Health Care, in booklet 25253 to take account of R (Coughlan) v. N & E Devon HA CA July, 1999 and the Health Ombudsman's report E.208/99–00; [87541]

  (4) what steps he is taking to ensure that health authorities and primary care trusts comply with guidance issued in the circular of 25 September HSC 2001/17: LAC (2001)26, page 31; [87542]
  1043W
  (5) what steps he is taking to ensure that health authorities and primary care trusts follow the Health Ombudsman's recommendations in her report E.208/99–00, that the new authority should review the eligibility criteria for funding continuing care to ensure that they are in line with the Coughlan judgment and other relevant guidance; [87544]

  (6) what steps he is taking to ensure that health authorities and primary care trusts follow the Health Ombudsman's recommendations in her report E.208/99–00 that the strategic health authorities should determine whether there were any patients who were wrongly refused funding for continuing care and make the necessary arrangements for reimbursing the costs they incurred unnecessarily; [87545]

  (7) what steps he is taking to ensure that health authorities and primary care trusts follow the health ombudsman's recommendations in her report E.208/99–00, that assessments of eligibility should include why the patient is considered to meet, or not to meet, all the criteria. [87540]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answers 17 December 2002]: The Ombudsman's report referred to has not been published. It is therefore not possible to comment on the contents.

  However, health authorities and subsequently strategic health authorities (StHAs) have reviewed their local criteria in line with the judgement in North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan. The chief executive wrote to national health service chief executives about NHS continuing care over the summer. In the light of an earlier Ombudsman's case where an individual had been denied funding, he reminded them of the need to ensure that previous eligibility criteria did not deny patients NHS funded care to which they were entitled. In that case, the Ombudsman recommended that the eligibility criteria that had been in operation by the authority since April 1996 should be reviewed and that reimbursement of costs should be made to any patients found to have been refused funding incorrectly. StHAs have been asked to consider whether criteria in their area were at similar fault and whether other patients were also denied NHS funding of their care. The Department will be monitoring this as part of the process of reviewing StHA's criteria.

  The Department does not consider there is any need to amend the wording of Appendix 6 of HSC 2001/17: LAC (2001) 26.

  The leaflet, "NHS Funded Nursing Care—What it Means for You", is a guide to people living in or going into a care home providing nursing care, their families and carers. It is not statutory guidance. Separate guidance on the single assessment process asked the NHS and councils to carry out a joint, comprehensive old age assessment when individuals enter care homes or receive other intensive packages of care as part of continuing care, intermediate care or NHS funded nursing care. Local implementation teams for the national service framework for older people, covering all primary care trusts and councils, are required to oversee implementation of this guidance by April 2004.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 31 October 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Andrew Evans. [86658]

  Mr. Milburn
  A reply was sent to the right hon. Member on 19 December 2002.

  Denturism
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the legislative process for the legalisation of denturism will be completed; when he last met the General Dental Council to discuss this; and if he will make a statement. [87158]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government plan to publish draft legislation reforming the regulation of dentistry in 2003. It is now discussing with interested groups in what form this legislation should provide for clinical dental technicians, or denturists, to undertake the practice of dentistry. I last met the president and registrar of the General Dental Council on 31 July when our discussions included the modernisation of the regulation of dentistry.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum, how much will be spent in Ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88135]

  Mr. Lammy
  This information cannot be provided without disproportionate cost. Any expenditure incurred on entertaining, decorations and other festive activities is strictly for official purposes only, and is made in accordance with departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

  Electronic Patient Records
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS Trusts in the south west have introduced electronic patient records. [88006]

  Ms Blears
  There are no trusts in the south west which have fully introduced electronic patient records although most are in the process of implementation.

  EU Food Supplements Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers the Government has to modify the implementation plans for the EU Food Supplements Directive. [88183]

  Ms Blears
  The EU Food Supplements Directive came into force on 12 July 2002. The Government is not in a position to modify the timing of implementation, which is set out in Article 15 of the Directive. The Food Standards Agency, on behalf of the Government, is currently consulting on draft implementing Regulations, which are required to be in place by 31 July 2003.
  1045W
  Article 4(6) of the Directive enables member states to allow extended transitional arrangements in some circumstances; the draft Regulations would take advantage of this provision. Article 10 enables member states to require notification of products; the draft Regulations would not introduce a notification system.

  Food Imports (Banned Substances)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on food imports which contain substances banned by the EU. [87119]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that checks are carried out by local authorities and port health authorities on imported food from non-European Union countries to ensure compliance with the EU veterinary checks regime for food products of animal origin and under United Kingdom national legislation for food products of non-animal origin. In particular checks are made to ensure that where substances are specifically banned by EU legislation, appropriate action is taken to prevent them entering the human food chain.

  Food Supplements
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the food supplements accepted as safe by the Food Standards Agency that will become illegal under EU law during 2003. [88176]

  Ms Blears
  There is no requirement under current United Kingdom legislation for food supplements to be assessed for safety before being placed on the market. As for other foods, the onus is on manufacturers to comply with food safety legislation, which is enforced by local authorities.

  Directive 2002/46/EC on Food Supplements, which came into force on 12 July 2002, will, after a transitional period, require prior assessment of vitamin and mineral sources used in these products. Member states are obliged to transpose it into national legislation by 31 July 2003. The Food Standards Agency is currently consulting on draft implementing Regulations.

  Implementation of the Directive will not immediately outlaw any products already on the UK market. The impact of the Directive on the future availability of products currently on the market will depend upon future developments on lists of permitted nutrients and on maximum levels of nutrients in food supplements.

  Foster Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the success of the foster carer recruitment campaign launched in July 2000; and if he will make a statement. [83712]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 136W.

  GP Registers (Patient Removal)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rules govern the right of doctors to remove patients from their registers. [83258]
  1046W
  Mr. Hutton
  These are set out at paragraphs 9 and 9A of Schedule 2 to the NHS (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 and direction 4 of the Directions to Health Authorities Concerning Patient Lists (Personal Medical Services) 1998.

  Health Statistics
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are affected by(a) obesity, (b) depression, (c) coronary heart disease, (d) stroke and (e) poor nutrition, in each health authority; and if he will make a statement. [84184]

  Ms Blears
  According to the latest survey figures available, 21 per cent. of men and women in England are classified as obese; 3 per cent. of women and 2 per cent. of men reported a depressive episode in a selected one week period; 7.1 per cent. of men and 4.6 per cent. of women are classified as having ischaemic heart disease (angina or heart attack) and 8.5 per cent. of men and 6.2 per cent. of women as having ischaemic heart disease or stroke. The above figures are not available at health authority level. There is no recognised definition of "poor nutrition".

  Homeless People
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of homeless people suffered from tuberculosis in each year since 1997. [87187]

  Ms Blears
  In the year 2001–02, there were 10 admissions for tuberculosis with a home address of no fixed abode. This totals 0.1 per cent. of admissions for all diseases with a home address of no fixed abode.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment his Department has carried out on the longevity of homeless people. [87188]

  Ms Blears
  No recent assessment has been made of the longevity of homeless people, although research by Crisis (1996) found that the life expectancy of someone who sleeps rough is 42 years.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of homeless people used accident and emergency units at hospitals in the last 12 months. [87190]

  Ms Blears
  The homeless people interviewed as part of the recent research carried out by Crisis (December 2002) found that homeless people were over four times more likely than the general public to turn to accident and emergency when they could not access a general practitioner, 43 per cent., compared to 10 per cent.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of homeless people suffered from(a) chest infections (b) leg sores and (c) asthma in the last 12 months. [87191]

  Ms Blears
  In the year 2001–02, there were 46 admissions for asthma and 75 admissions for chest infections with a home address of no fixed abode. Data are not available for leg sores. This totals 0.6 per cent. and 1 per cent. of admissions for all diseases with a home address of no fixed abode for asthma and chest infections respectively.
  1047W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in NHS hospitals are homeless, broken down by health authority. [87202]

  Ms Blears
  In the year 2001–02 there were 7,620 admissions with a home address of 'No Fixed Abode'. A breakdown by health authority is shown in the table.

  Admissions (2001–02) for those with a home address 'No Fixed Abode' broken down by health authority

  Name

  Count of admissions

  Hillingdon HA

  22

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  133

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  106

  Bedfordshire HA

  55

  Berkshire HA

  78

  Buckinghamshire HA

  50

  Croydon HA

  16

  East Kent HA

  38

  West Kent HA

  55

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  16

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  962

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  60

  East Surrey HA

  5

  West Surrey HA

  104

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  61

  West Sussex HA

  32

  Barking and Havering HA

  20

  Brent and Harrow HA

  30

  Camden and Islington HA

  753

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  402

  East London and The City HA

  152

  North Essex HA

  92

  South Essex HA

  61

  South Lancashire HA

  9

  Liverpool HA

  163

  Manchester HA

  92

  Morecambe Bay HA

  43

  St, Helens and Knowsley HA

  51

  Salford and Trafford HA

  7

  Sefton HA

  57

  Stockport HA

  17

  West Pennine HA

  14

  Northamptonshire HA

  74

  Oxfordshire HA

  77

  Suffolk HA

  84

  Barnsley HA

  50

  North Derbyshire HA

  13

  South Derbyshire HA

  63

  Doncaster HA

  66

  Leicestershire HA

  93

  Lincolnshire HA

  161

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  71

  Nottingham HA

  135

  Rotherham HA

  51

  Sheffield HA

  88

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  17

  South Cheshire HA

  35

  East Lancashire HA

  73

  North West Lancashire HA

  248

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  32

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  237

  Somerset HA

  36

  South and West Devon HA

  83

  Wiltshire HA

  20

  Avon HA

  212

  Birmingham HA

  126

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  40

  Wirral HA

  49

  Bradford HA

  58

  County Durham HA

  16

  East Riding HA

  83

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  43

  1048W

  Admissions (2001–02) for those with a home address 'No Fixed Abode' broken down by health authority

  Name

  Count of admissions

  Leeds HA

  170

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  8

  North Cumbria HA

  29

  South Humber HA

  26

  Northumberland HA

  65

  Tees HA

  37

  Wakefield HA

  36

  North Yorkshire HA

  70

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  94

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  1

  Dorset HA

  51

  North and East Devon HA

  40

  Gloucestershire HA

  51

  Coventry HA

  53

  Dudley HA

  10

  Herefordshire HA

  20

  Sandwell HA

  4

  Shropshire HA

  10

  South Staffordshire HA

  38

  Walsall HA

  19

  Warwickshire HA

  10

  Worcestershire HA

  5

  Cambridge HA

  213

  Norfolk HA

  107

  Isle of White, Portsmouth and Southampton HA

  126

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey HA

  59

  Hertfordshire HA

  54

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich HA

  24

  Total

  7,620

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that homeless people are able to register with a general practitioner; [87205]

  (2) if it is his Department's policy to encourage homeless people to register permanently with a general practitioner. [87189]

  Mr. Hutton
  National Health Service medical primary care services are available free to all persons who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, including those who are homeless. To that end patients do not need a permanent address to register with a general practitioner.

  Primary care trusts can also provide targeted primary care services for homeless people through a tailored personal medical services contract, or general medical services local development scheme or through provision of a walk-in service.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of homeless people suffered from diabetes in the last 12 months. [87208]

  Ms Blears
  In the year 2001–02, there were 46 admissions for diabetes with a home address of no fixed abode. This totals 0.6 per cent. of admissions for all diseases with a home address of no fixed abode.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients whose address was listed as no fixed abode were admitted to NHS hospitals between(a) December 1998 and January 1999, (b) December 1997 and January 1998, and (c) December 1996 and January 1997. [87209]
  1049W
  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of patients admitted to national health service hospitals between December 1996 and January 1999 with an address listed as no fixed abode is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of patients

  December 1996-January 1997

  557

  December 1997-January 1998

  758

  December 1998-January 1999

  895

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the dates since 1997 when he and his officials have met representatives of homeless charities and voluntary organisations to discuss the health needs of homeless people. [87446]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and officials have had numerous meetings with charitable and voluntary organisations since his appointment in October 1999. These meetings have discussed a range of topics including health issues which affect homeless people.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage a greater take-up of GP services by homeless people. [87473]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service medical primary care services are available free to everyone who is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, including anyone who is homeless. We have in place a range of initiatives to improve access to general practitioner services for homeless people. These include the development of a model general medical service local development scheme for primary care trusts to use to develop such and the promotion of locally agreed personal medical services (PMS) contracts with a similar focus. There are now more than 80 PMS pilot schemes, which include the homeless as a priority objective.

  Medical Personnel
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) administrative, (b) managerial, (c) clerical and (d) other non-practicing medical personnel are employed in (i) the Department of Health, (ii) national health NDPBs, (iii) health trusts, (iv) PCTs and (v) hospitals. [81260]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information available is shown in the tables.

  The national health service, the Department of Health and non-departmental public bodies have different definitions for management, administrative and clerical staff, they have been combined for comparison in the table 1 and are shown separately in table 2 for the NHS.

  Non-practising medical personnel are not separately identifiable within the non-medical workforce census.
  1050W

  Table 1: NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS), Department of Health and health non-departmental public bodies: management, administrative and clerical staff employed in England

  Headcount

  All managerial, administrative and clerical staff

  219,220

  NHS Trusts

  171,050

  Primary care trusts

  14,750

  Health authorities

  17,320

  Special health authorities and others

  8,540

  Department of Health

  4,820

  Health NDPBs

  2,740

  Notes:

  Figures rounded to nearest 10.

  Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  Table 2: NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS) management and administrative and clerical staff by organisation type—England as at September 2001

  Headcount

  All management and administrative staff

  Administrative managers

  All clerical and administrative staff1

  All NHS

  211,650

  27,420

  184,230

  HAs

  17,320

  5,140

  12,180

  Trusts

  171,050

  18,840

  152,210

  PCTs

  14,750

  2,580

  12,170

  SHAs and others

  8,540

  870

  7,670

  1 Administration and clerical staff include: Ambulance service support, blood transfusion service, catering, community admin, community care, computing, domestic services, estates management and support, family planning, farms and gardens, finance, fire prevention/safety, general management/support services, health education, home wardens, hotel services, interpreters, laundry services, legal services, library services, linen services, management services, medical and dental support, medical records, medical secretaries, NHS research, nursing support, occupational health, operational research, P&T (other) support, AHP support, patient services, personnel, planning/contracting, public relations, S&P support, secretarial and typing, social work, statistics and information, stores, supplies, transport (inc. portering), voluntary help organiser.

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Source:

  Department of Health 2001 non-medical workforce census.

  Merseyside Regional Ambulance Service
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why the remuneration package of the previous chief executive of Merseyside regional ambulance service, Mr. Todhunter, was not published in the MRAS 2001–02 annual report; and what his remuneration package was, including payments related to his termination of employment. [82995]

  Jacqui Smith (holding answer 27 November 2002]
  The information pertaining to the former chief executive was not published because he refused his consent to publication. The following information was published in the trust's 2000–01 annual report:

  £ thousand

  Chief Executive's Remuneration

  2000–01

  1999–00

  Basic remuneration

  76

  74

  Benefits

  8

  6

  Performance related bonuses

  0

  5

  Pension contributions

  4

  3

  Total

  88

  88

  1051W
  The Mersey regional ambulance service NHS trust chief executive, Mr. David Todhunter, resigned in May 2001. The trust has discharged its contractual responsibilities to Mr. Todhunter amounting to £42, 684. This payment relates to the financial year 2001–02.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he measures the number of mixed-sex wards in NHS trusts; and how many mixed-sex wards there are in(a) each region and (b) England. [86875]

  Mr. Hutton [holding answer 12 December 2002]
  The information requested is not available in this format, as the provision of single-sex accommodation is measured on a trust by trust basis and not at individual ward level.

  Most hospital wards generally care for both men and women. To provide the required levels of privacy and dignity for patients, wards are split into single sex bays or single rooms, or otherwise configured to provide gender segregation. It is the responsibility of each national health service trust to determine the most appropriate configuration to meet their specific requirements.

  NHS Dentistry (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists are accepting NHS patients in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire. [87420]

  Mr. Lammy
  There is currently one general dental services practice in Shrewsbury and Atcham willing to accept children and some charge-exempt adults as new National Health Service patients. In Shropshire, including Telford and Wrekin, there are five practices willing to accept charge-exempt adults and children and four practices accepting children only.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much training is provided to those manning the call centre of NHS Direct. [86066]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: There has and continues to be a significant investment in staff development at NHS Direct.

  NHS Direct nurses must have a minimum of three years post registered qualifications before starting with NHS Direct. In addition, this will involve a period of four to six weeks' induction training followed by a period of on-line preceptorship.

  NHS HCHS and general practice doctors and nurses in England, 1992–2001

  Numbers (headcount)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  All doctors excluding retainers1

  79,230

  80,740

  81,320

  84,460

  86,580

  Consultants

  17,140

  17,490

  18,050

  19,420

  20,300

  of which

  Hospital medical consultants

  16,260

  16,600

  17,100

  18,400

  19,220

  Registrar group

  10,730

  11,050

  11,210

  11,470

  11,380

  of which:

  Hospital medical registrar group

  10,080

  10,370

  10,570

  10,820

  10,840

  1052W
  NHS Direct also is committed to on-going training and professional development. This involves an allocation for training each year of 21 days for nurses, 16 days for health information advisers and 11 days for call handlers.

  NHS Professionals
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to date of NHS Professionals. [85299]

  Mr. Hutton
  The cost to date of NHS Professionals has been £4 million to support the start up in 2000–01, £3 million in 2001–02 and a further £2 million in 2002–03 to support roll out.

  It is expected that NHS Professionals will be self-funding in the longer term, but central funding has been provided to support start up and initial implementation of NHS Professionals as the primary provider of temporary healthcare professionals within the national health service.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 303W, on NHS Professionals, whether the findings of the assessment team will be (a) published and (b) placed in the Library. [87934]

  Mr. Hutton
  The assessment is part of the internal and on-going project management process for implementing NHS Professionals. The outcomes will be shared with those involved in implementing NHS Professionals, including strategic health authorities, work force development confederations and national health service employers.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in each year since 1992. [87418]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Between 1997 and 2001 the number of doctors, excluding general practitioner retainers, employed in the national health service increased by 9,550, or 10.7 per cent., from 89,620 to 99,170.

  Between September 1997 and 2001 the number of nurses employed in the NHS increased by 31,520, or 10 per cent., from 318,860 to 350,380. This compares to the decrease of nearly 5,000, or 1.5 per cent., between 1992 and 1997.
  1053W

  NHS HCHS and general practice doctors and nurses in England, 1992–2001

  Numbers (headcount)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Other doctors in training

  16,270

  16,720

  16,800

  17,790

  18,640

  of which:

  Hospital medical doctors in training

  14,610

  15,050

  15,210

  16,160

  16,990

  Hospital practitioners and clinical assistants2

  7,770

  7,440

  6,900

  7,130

  6,740

  Other hospital medical staff

  1,660

  2,090

  2,260

  2,840

  3,330

  Other medical and dental staff

  5,250

  4,940

  4,270

  4,080

  3,820

  GMPs excluding retainers

  28,180

  28,460

  28,740

  28,870

  29,120

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents

  25,970

  26,290

  26,570

  26,700

  26,860

  Other practitioners3

  600

  640

  720

  760

  960

  GP registrars

  1,610

  1,530

  1,440

  1,400

  1,310

  GP retainers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Qualified Nurses

  323,800

  319,320

  313,240

  316,890

  319,150

  HCHS qualified nurses

  307,160

  301,810

  296,740

  298,650

  301,250

  Practice nurses4

  16,640

  17,520

  16,500

  18,240

  17,900

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  All doctors excluding retainers1

  89,620

  91,840

  93,980

  96,320

  99,170

  Consultants

  21,370

  22,220

  23,220

  24,310

  25,690

  of which:

  Hospital medical consultants

  20,200

  21,040

  22,020

  23,040

  24,400

  Registrar group

  11,910

  12,130

  12,680

  12,730

  13,220

  of which:

  Hospital medical registrar group

  11,360

  11,590

  12,100

  12,160

  12,650

  Other doctors in training

  19,550

  19,840

  19,950

  20,270

  20,690

  of which:

  Hospital medical doctors in training

  17,920

  18,200

  18,320

  18,690

  19,070

  Hospital practitioners and clinical assistants2

  6.610

  6,320

  6,010

  5,620

  5,360

  Other hospital medical staff

  3,780

  4,500

  5,100

  5,860

  6,360

  Other medical and dental staff

  3,620

  3,440

  3,040

  2,900

  2,530

  GMPs excluding retainers

  29,390

  29,700

  29,990

  30,250

  30,680

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents

  27.100

  27,390

  27,590

  27,700

  27,840

  Other practitioners3

  950

  860

  880

  890

  960

  GP registrars

  1,340

  1,450

  1,520

  1,660

  1,880

  GP retainers

  —

  —

  970

  1,120

  1,150

  Qualified Nurses

  318,860

  323,460

  329,640

  335,950

  350,380

  HCHS qualified nurses

  300,470

  304,560

  310,140

  316,750

  330,540

  Practice nurses4

  18,390

  18,890

  19,500

  19.200

  19,850

  1 GP Retainers were first counted in 1999.

  2 Most of these doctors also work as GPs. To avoid double counting, medical hospital practitioners and medical clinical assistants are not included in the All Doctors total.

  3 Other Practitioners include Assistants, Restricted Principals, Salaried Doctors (para. 52 SFA) and PMS Other GPs.

  4 Practice nurse headcount information was estimated in 1992. 1993, 1998 and 1999. Underlying figures for 2000 suggest the practice nurse figure may be an overestimate.

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census. Data as at 30 September each year.

  Department of Health general and personal medical services statistics. Data as at 1 October 1990–99 and 30 September 2000–01.

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census. Data as at 30 September each year.

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people left early from courses leading to a nursing qualification in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [82575]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: 1,503 students left early from courses leading to a nursing qualification between January and December 2000, the last complete year for which information is available. A further 400 students left early from courses between January and March 2001.

  Overseas Nurse Advice Line
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department(a) has spent and (b) plans to spend next year in advertising the NHS overseas nurses advice line; and what form this advertising will take. [87469]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service overseas nurses advice line has been advertised through various means, including a press launch in September which channelled information about the line to the NHS and
  1055W
  the independent sector. Articles on the NHS overseas nurses advice line have also appeared in the nursing press and the Chief Nursing Officer has highlighted the advice line in bulletins and through quarterly briefing meetings with nursing directors and primary care trust lead nurses.

  A total of £2,273.62 has been spent this year on the production of cards publishing the advice line and these cards have been distributed by national organisations, including the Royal College of Nursing and Unison. In addition, the Philippine overseas employment administration also distributes the cards free of charge to their nurses and in the new year the Nursing and Midwifery Council will be issue cards to overseas representatives.

  A decision on the advertising budget has yet to be decided and this will be in light of the likely future demand.

  Patient Deregistration
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will ensure that GPs give written reasons why a patient is deregistered; and if he will make a statement. [86164]

  Mr. Hutton
  Although there is currently no legal requirement for a general practitioner (GP) to give a written reason why a patient is deregistered, the General Medical Council's guidance, Good Medical Practice, says that GPs should as far as possible give reasons for the removal. The Department fully supports this advice and the rules and procedures which allow GPs to remove patients from their lists are being reviewed as part of the process for negotiating a new general medical services contract.

  Personal Medical Services
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the contact details and objectives of the personal medical services pilot schemes in each primary care trust that were established from(a) April 2001, (b) October 2001, (c) April 2002 and (d) October 2002. [83913]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested will be placed in the Library.

  Port Medical Units
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the last 12 months who came to the UK

  Heathrow

  Gatwick

  Manchester

  Dover

  Year

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Doctors

  Nurses

  2002

  7.5 FTE

  0

  3.25 FTE

  0

  0.05 FTE and 3 GPs on call

  0.2 FTE

  2 FTE

  2 FTE

  2001

  7.5 FTE

  0

  3.25 FTE

  0

  0.05 FTE

  0

  2 FTE

  0

  2000

  7.5 FTE

  0

  3.75 FTE

  0

  0.05 FTE

  0

  2 FTE

  0

  1999

  7.5 FTE

  0

  3.75 FTE

  0

  0.05 FTE

  2 FTE

  2 FTE

  0

  1998

  7.5 FTE

  0

  2.75 FTE

  0

  0.01 FTE

  2 FTE

  2 FTE

  0

  1997

  7.5 FTE

  0

  2.75 FTE

  0

  0.01 FTE

  2 FTE

  2 FTE

  0

  1056W
  and resided for more than six months (a) received and (b) did not receive a medical screening on arrival at port of entry. [86742]

  Ms Blears
  Home Office statistics show that in 2001, the most recent year for which figures are available, 483,000 people subject to immigration control were granted leave at ports of entry in England to enter the United Kingdom for more than six months.

  Long-standing policy is that any person subject to immigration control who:

  (i) mentions health or medical treatment as a reason for coming to the United Kingdom, or appears unwell; or

  (ii) is seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom for six months or more and is at high risk of having been exposed to tuberculosis

  should be referred by the immigration officer to a medical inspector.

  Figures are not available on the number of people who meet one or both of the two criteria above, and statistics on the number of referrals to medical inspectors are not routinely collected from all ports of entry. However, four ports handled over 94 per cent. of entrants arriving in England in 2001 and seeking leave to enter the UK for six months or more. The health control units at those ports have provided the figures for referrals given in the table. In addition, for some visa nationals, medical referrals are made at the overseas post rather than the port of entry.

  Port

  Entrants granted leave to enter for six months or more1

  Referrals to medical inspectors2

  Heathrow

  343,000

  141,072

  Gatwick

  57,500

  6,101

  Manchester

  21,500

  2,774

  Dover (including Channel Tunnel)

  32,700

  265

  Total for four ports

  455,000

  150,212

  Note:

  1 Data rounded to three significant figures.

  Sources:

  1 Home Office.

  2 Health Control Units (includes a small number of referrals where entry was refused).

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical staff were employed in each port medical unit in each of the last 10 years; and how many were(a) doctors and (b) nurses. [86744]

  Ms Blears
  We do not routinely collect data on staff in medical units at all ports of entry in England. However, four ports handled over 94 per cent. of entrants arriving in England in 2001 and seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom for six months or more. The health control units at those ports have provided the figures in the table. These do not include figures for other support staff.
  1057W

  Heathrow

  Gatwick

  Manchester

  Dover

  Year

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Doctors

  Nurses

  1996

  7.5 FTE

  0

  2.75 FTE

  0

  0.01 FTE

  3 FTE

  2 FTE

  0

  1995

  7.5 FTE

  0

  2.75 FTE

  0

  0.01 FTE

  3 FTE

  2 FTE

  0

  1994

  7.5 FTE

  0

  2.75 FTE

  0

  0.01 FTE

  4 FTE

  2 FTE

  0

  1993

  7.5 FTE

  0

  2.75 FTE

  0

  0.01 FTE

  4 FTE

  2 FTE

  0

  Note:

  FTE—full time equivalents

  Poultry Imports
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who carries out tests for furazolidone in turkeys impounded at border inspection posts in the EU; whether such tests are conducted on all poultry imported from Brazil; how much such tests cost; how many birds for food were imported into this country from Brazil in each year since 1997; and how many tested positive for furazolidone. [87118]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: The Food Standards Agency set up a testing system for nitrofurans in poultry meat from Brazil. Staff at the border inspection posts are responsible for operation of the system. All consignments of poultry meat from Brazil must be analysed. The cost of the tests varies among the laboratories which carry out the testing. The cost per sample varies from £220 to £600. We have no information on how many birds have been imported each year from Brazil since 1997. Since the testing regime was introduced in October 2002, 192 consignments have been analysed and none have tested positive for furazolidone.

  Prisons (Health Needs Assessment)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the prisons that have not completed a health needs assessment. [87445]

  Jacqui Smith
  All prisons have completed a health needs assessment, working with their local National Health Service partners.

  Prosecutions (Contaminated Blood)
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to protect doctors in the UK from being prosecuted for prescribing contaminated blood. [86266]

  Ms Blears
  The Consumer Protection Act 1987 was enacted by Parliament in compliance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the EU Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC. The Act imposes strict liability on manufacturers. All blood and blood products issued to hospitals by the National Blood Service (NBS), are classed as falling within this Act. The NBS is therefore liable, not the doctor, should a patient develop a proven transfusion transmitted infection or any other adverse outcome that can be related to the quality of the blood or component transfused. Neither is the doctor liable if he prescribes any other licensed blood product not supplied by the NBS provided it is licensed for use in the UK.

  School-age Workers
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of each of the current LEA byelaws on the employment of school age children. [82425]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local authority byelaws are a matter of public record and anyone wishing to obtain a copy may do so from the authority concerned. It is not normal practice to include individual byelaws in the Library.

  Secure Beds
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) high secure beds, (b) medium secure beds, (c) low secure beds and (d) long-term secure beds there were in each year since 1997. [87439]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the tables. The long-term secure bed numbers are included in these figures, but not separately identified in routine data collection.

  High secure beds

  Year

  Number

  1997

  1,374

  1998

  1,366

  1999

  1,320

  2000

  1,290

  2001

  1,263

  2002

  1,244

  Estimated number of medium and other secure beds1

  Year

  Medium

  Other

  1997–98

  1,493

  986

  1998–99

  1,642

  1,032

  1999–2000

  1,994

  1,191

  2000–01

  2,231

  1,353

  2001–02

  2—

  2—

  1 Bed numbers are calculated from health authority returns of occupied bed days and assuming a 95 per cent. occupancy rate.

  2 Figures currently not available.

  Specialist Register (Overseas Applicants)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of scrutiny of training will apply to overseas applicants to join the UK specialist register. [87754]

  Mr. Hutton
  All doctors applying to join the specialist register must meet certain standards. For doctors possessing a specialist qualification awarded overseas, the qualification must be equivalent to the United Kingdom qualification, in specialties for which the UK itself awards a qualification, or, for all other specialties, give the doctor the knowledge and skill consistent with
  1059W
  practice as a consultant in that specialty in the national health service. These requirements are set by the European Specialist Medical Qualifications Order 1995.

  It is the job of the specialist training authority of the Medical Royal Colleges (STA) to assess whether these standards are met in individual cases. We are proposing to replace the STA with a new body, the postgraduate medical education and training board, under legislation we hope to bring before the House in the new year.

  Surgical Specialties
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to increase the number of additional funded Higher Surgical Training next year; [87753]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the number of consultants in surgical specialities. [87892]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at March 2002, there were 4,969 consultants within the surgical group, which represents an increase of 21 per cent. since September 1997. Current work force projections suggest that by March 2004, there may be sufficient trained specialists to increase numbers in the specialties by around 1,000 over a 2,000 baseline.

  In 2002–03, the surgical specialties were allocated 34 of the total number of centrally funded national training numbers. The combined ceiling posts were 316. This gives trusts considerable opportunity to fund extra posts themselves. The first round of bidding for ceiling posts suggests that locally funded surgical posts will be popular and that the ceiling is likely to be reached.

  We have agreed that 316 additional higher specialist surgical training opportunities, with central and local funding, should be made available to be taken up by March 2004. Additionally, we are identifying and encouraging suitable doctors on the specialist register, but not working as consultants to compete for posts, establishing more part-time and job share posts and improving retention through a flexible careers scheme and flexible retirement.

  Thrombolysis
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of heart attack victims in(a) Wiltshire, (b) the south west and (c) England received thrombolysis within 30 minutes in the most recent period for which records are available. [88005]

  Ms Blears
  According to data from the myocardial infarction national audit project for June to September 2002, the following percentage of eligible heart attack patients received thrombolysis within 30 minutes of hospital arrival:57 per cent. of patients in Avon Gloucestershire and Wiltshire Strategic Health Authority;
  61 per cent. of patients in the south west (Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, Somerset and Dorset and South West Peninsula Strategic Health Authorities);
  63 per cent. of patients in England.
  1060W
  This represents significant and steady progress since the publication of the national service framework for coronary heart disease in March 2000.

  Woodside Adolescent Unit
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the estimated total annual cost is of the new adolescent unit at Springfield hospital combined with the estimated annual cost of maintaining the replacement services under consultation for Surrey following the proposed closure of the Woodside Adolescent Unit; and what the current annual cost was of the Woodside unit in the last 12 months; [87523]

  (2) what discussions Surrey Oaklands initiated with the NHS in London about the closure of the Woodside Adolescent Unit; [87525]

  (3) what the clinical reason was for the decision to transfer adolescent services from the Woodside Adolescent Unit to a new unit at Springfield hospital. [87524]

  Ms Blears
  In order to meet the needs of the local population, clinicians and commissioners in South West London felt that a local unit was needed with outreach provision, intensive care facilities, treatment available seven days a week and an ability to take emergency admissions where clinically indicated. This would better provide accessible specialist services to adolescents with mental health problems.

  The new adolescent unit at Springfield hospital is estimated to cost £1.7 million, and will include the development of an outreach service to offer intensive pre and post-admission support to adolescents. Precise costs of proposed replacement services for Surrey will be available after the public consultation, depending on the outcome. However, East Surrey Primary Care Trust (PCT) is committed to maintaining the same level of funding as currently exists at £462,000. The annual cost of the Woodside unit is approximately £1.06 million, but other placements are made in both the national health service and the private sector, and costs vary according to the particular needs of the adolescent and the particular placement.

  There have been regular quarterly meetings over the past three years, chaired by East Surrey Health Authority (HA) initially, and involving Merton Sutton and Wandsworth HA, South West London region. Surrey Oaklands formally declared its intention in March 2002 to close the unit in September 2002, but in July 2002, notified the South West Strategic HA that the closure had been deferred to allow more time for the service to be reconfigured.

  All parties are fully aware of the impact that the withdrawal of South West London's funds would have on Woodside. Meetings are still held and are now chaired by East Surrey PCT, with the involvement of Wandsworth PCT and other stakeholders.

CABINET OFFICE

  Cabinet Office Report
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander):
  The Cabinet Office Performance Report 2002 has today been published and laid before Parliament. Copies have been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

  Civil Service Sickness Absence
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander):
  The report 'Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service 2001' prepared for my department by Aon Limited shows that by applying the same methodology as in previous years the average level of sickness absence was 9.2 days per staff year. This represents a 7 per cent. decrease over the equivalent figure of 9.9 days set out in the report for 2000. The report contains a comprehensive analysis of the 2001 figures.

  Calculated on the basis of absence per person, the figure for the Civil Service was 8.0 days. According to the CBI survey for 2001, this compares favourably with a figure of 10.1 days for the public sector as a whole and is only slightly more than the average rate of 7.1 days for all sectors.

  Departments have published Service Delivery Agreements which contain their individual targets for reducing sickness absence. Overall the Civil Service has been targeted to reduce sickness absence by 30 per cent. (to 7.2 days per staff year) by 2003 against the 1998 baseline. My department is continuing to work with other departments and agencies as they take forward their plans to reduce sickness absence.

  I have placed copies of the Aon report in the Libraries of the House.

  Open Government Initiative Figures
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander):
  The number of records released under the Open Government Initiative since its introduction in 1992 now stands at over 124,000 and relates to releases up to 31 December 2001. The breakdown of releases is as follows:

  Department

  Total

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  6,163

  Cabinet Office

  8,113

  Office of National Statistics

  401

  Crown Prosecution Service

  1,054

  68WS

  Department

  Total

  HM Customs and Excise

  1,008

  Ministry of Defence

  12,052

  Department for Education and Sills

  3,802

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  22,277

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  18,600

  Department of Health

  2,122

  Department for Work and Pensions

  3,322

  Home Office

  3,553

  Board of Inland Revenue

  2

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  6,448

  Court Services

  3,521

  Metropolitan Police

  1,151

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  0

  Northern Ireland (NI and Depts, Northern Ireland Office and NI Court Services)

  11,808

  Department for International Development

  749

  Scottish Executive

  4,928

  Department of Trade and Industry

  651

  HM Treasury

  995

  Wales Office, Office of the Secretary of State for Wales

  983

  Government Communications Headquarters

  9,083

  Security Service

  1,332

  Total

  124,118

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge):
  The level of support available to students in the academic year 2003–04 will be 2.4 per cent. higher than for 2002–03, in line with forecast price increases. I am placing a Memorandum in the Library giving details of the new loan, grant and fee rates for 2003–04. These rates will be incorporated in the Education (Student Support) Regulations, which cover support for eligible students under the current arrangements, and in the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations and the Education (Student Loans) Amendment Regulations, which cover the decreasing number of students who are still receiving awards and loans under the pre-1998 arrangements. These regulations will all be laid before Parliament in due course.

  Departmental Spending Plans
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke):
  On 9 December I set out, Official Report col. 22, our outline investment and reform plans for the education and skills sector, except for higher education. This statement gives the House some further details of spending, within the totals already announced, in a number of key areas. I also attach a table which sets out in detail the allocations I have made. I will announce our plans for Higher Education in January.

  Departmental Spending Plans

    SURE START
    A strong early start for children is vital to longer term educational success, particularly for children from poorer backgrounds. And a sound educational start in life is the best foundation from which to lift children out of poverty. We have already announced that the new, expanded Sure Start Unit will transform childcare, early years education and family and health support services with total funds, including Education Formula Spending (EPS), of £850/1223/1510 million over the three years to 2005–06. By that year, this represents over a third more than was available for 2002–03. These sums will be supplemented by using £203/103/129 million of accumulated End Year Flexibility from Sure Start programmes.
    Some 50 per cent. of the total budget each year (£620/689/788 million) is already earmarked to go direct to local authorities in support of this work. I can now set out in some detail how that resource will be invested.

    SURE START
      (a) Nursery Education
      £344/327/345 million. As I made clear on 9 December, I will be transferring £319/322/40 million to Education Formula Spending to enable local authorities to provide universal provision for three year olds. As a result, all three year olds will have a free nursery education place in their area by April 2004, six months earlier than originally planned. In 2003–4 £20 million of capital grant will help local authorities whose physical infrastructure might otherwise prevent them reaching universal provision. And as part of our commitment to early education £5 million is being made available in each of the three years to develop maintained nursery schools.
      (b) Disadvantaged Areas
      £471/615/843 million. These funds will allow us to deliver 524 Sure Start programmes, to continue the 9 pilots to test how best to mainstream Sure Start methods and 50 programmes covering rural and small areas. £83/99/138 million of these funds will extend the neighbourhood nurseries programme, specifically to add 28,800 more places by March 2006 to the 45,000 we aim to set up by March 2004. We shall spend £5163/181 million on children's centres in disadvantaged areas to reach at least 650,000 children by March 2006. This funding also pays for the 100 Early Excellence Centres by March 2004 (£25/15/13 million) promised in our 2001 Manifesto.
      (c) Other childcare places and support funding
      £136/216/258 million. Within this amount £19/30/40 million will develop Out of School Childcare places in order to achieve our target of 250,000 places by March 2006. It provides funding for childminders' start up costs and support for childminder networks. Some £20/29/35 million will also be available to support advice, support and training to enable children with special needs to access and benefit from services. To manage the increasing demand brought about by the expansion of the programme, local authorities will receive £62/85/87 million to support the work of Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships.
      (d) Training and workforce development
      £52/63/76 million. We want to develop a workforce of highly competent childcare workers, and for all sectors to benefit from staff trained in Foundation Stage curriculum and potentially progression to Qualified Teacher Status. These funds will support workers in achieving level 2 and 3 qualifications through childcare workforce training (0/14/27 million), provide local authorities with funds to support training in Foundation Stage curriculum and practice, for practitioners in maintained, private and voluntary sectors (£36/37/37 million) and support the newly launched progression route to a higher level qualification and then to Qualified Teacher Status (£9/12/12 million).
      (e) Central Support
      £50/105/117 million. This will cover a range of activities key to the success of the programme including Criminal Record Bureau checks (£5/6/7 million) to pay for checks for childcare workers to avoid this being a disincentive to registration, recruitment and advertising campaigns (£4/9/9 million) and research and evaluation (£6/6/6 million). Funding will also provide for Business support (£3/9/9 million) as well as work with voluntary sector and other organisations (£7/8/8 million) with an active interest in children's well being. An unallocated provision of £0/33/44 million provides money for new projects to be developed over the later two years.
    SECTOR SKILLS COUNCILS (SSCs)
    I have already announced that we will be investing over £10 billion a year in skills by 2005–06. If that resource is to be used effectively we need to engage employers at all levels, including enabling them to work with others in their business sector. I am encouraged by early progress being made to establish the UK wide network of Sector Skills Councils. SSCs offer employers the opportunity to articulate the skills needs of their sector clearly, influence decisions by education and training providers about skills supply and deliver sustained improvements in productivity and service delivery. I am announcing today a substantial increase in funding to the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA) to enable the completion of the 'Skills for Business' network of Sector Skills Councils and to help address skills issues across the economy. The total planned funding for SSDA will rise to £427 457 48 million. This represents a doubling of the Agency's funding over the period from 2002–03.
    PRISON EDUCATION
    The Prisoners' Learning and Skills Unit, which is managed jointly between my Department and the Home Office, will increase dramatically both learning opportunities and learning outcomes in prisons. In fulfilment of our manifesto commitment and with particular focus on provision for 18–21 year olds, we are providing £85/110/125 million over the spending review period compared with the £66 million invested in 2002–03. These funds, together with the Capital Modernisation Funding agreed in April that we have begun investing, will help deliver a tailored coherent programme of learning for prisoners from induction and assessment on arrival in prison through to resettlement in the community on release.

    INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY (ICT)
    ICT is at the heart of universal access, educational transformation and preparing children, young people and adults for the knowledge economy. It has the potential to

    Raise standards

    Widen access to lifelong learning

    Engage poor performers, and

    Build the skills needed for work and life.

    Our investment in new technologies since 1998 has already produced significant achievements. These include NGfL in schools; the National Learning Network, UK Online Centres and Ufi/learndirect in post-16 learning; and the eUniversities project, and the high speed teaching and research JANET network in higher education.
    The 2002 Spending Review allocations which I have already announced will enable us to build on these achievements and reap the benefits of ICT for teachers and learners across all sectors. Our further investment in developing ICT infrastructure, content and skills means that we will support ICT programmes totalling, once matched funding from LEAs is included, over £820/858/920 million across the next three years on top of the investment by institutions themselves. For schools, Spending Review funding means that we will

    Connect all schools to the Internet at broadband speeds

    Deliver digital resources into the classroom through Curriculum Online

    Ensure that even more teachers have personal access to ICT, and

    Further embed the use of ICT across the curriculum to help deliver our standards and re-modelling agendas.

    The majority of funding will go to schools through the Standards Fund and, including LEA matched funding, spending on ICT will have increased to £660 million by 2005–06.
    In post-16 learning, the high speed JANET network will be extended beyond FE colleges to adult and community institutions, enabling access across the LSC sector. Additionally, a post-16 equivalent of curriculum online will make high quality digital content and resources for e-learning available to lecturers and students. £14 million of additional resources will be
    72WS
    provided in 2005–06 to ensure we continue to have a sustainable network of UK Online Centres. In higher education, further investment in the high speed network will bring even greater capacity and resilience for this world-class infrastructure, and enable a smooth transition to the new Super JANET by 2006.

    SCHOOLS STANDARDS FUND
    I announced last week that around £1.5 billion would be made available in each of the next 3 years to the schools standards fund to enable schools to galvanise reform on standards, behaviour and choice. Details of the Standards Fund grants available to schools and LEAs for 2003–04 were provided to LEAs on 29 November. This included the allocations to individual LEAs of most grants; some allocations, where the data needed to calculate LEAs1 allocations is not yet available, will be made later. The Department also circulated to LEAs on 10 December a forward indication of the sums planned to be made available, nationally, through the Standards Fund in 2004–05 and 2005–06.
    Copies of both these documents have been placed in the Library.

    OFSTED
    I have allocated £203/206/215 million to support OfSTED over the next three years. We recognise that it has an important role to play in monitoring and reporting publicly on what goes on in schools and elsewhere, The extra resources take account of OfSTED's increasing role in the regulation of childcare and post 16 inspections as well as school inspections in the maintained and independent sectors. We look forward to working with OfSTED as they help us to identify where improvements can be made in our continued drive to raise standards.

    RUNNING MY DEPARTMENT
    I am determined to ensure that the Department for Education and Skills continues to look at ways it can become more efficient in the way it operates and remains at the forefront of public service reform. I am allocating £231/246/245 million to Departmental administration costs. In 2003–04, the Department will also use around £16 million of its accumulated end year flexibility for administration costs. In real terms this allocation represents a 1.7 per cent. reduction in my Department's administration costs between 2002–03 and 2005–06. Over the same period programme expenditure will increase by 17 per cent.in real terms. By 2005–06, for every additional £1 we spend on administration, we shall be spending an additional £500 on programmes.
    I am allocating a further £29/35/32 million in programme funds to support evaluation, research, advertising, publicity, communications and ensuring the Department's services can be accessed on-line.
    The table attached shows the full allocations I have made. It includes a number of other allocations to support school-age education, in particular for initial teacher training, Academies and City Technology Colleges, and the National College for School Leadership as well as small but important allocations to continue to develop the Connexions Card, to support

    73WS
    joint work with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to foster creativity in schools and to encourage innovation in schools including through the development of Federations.
    I will be vigilant in ensuring that these substantial resources for education and skills are used efficiently and effectively over the next three years and are applied in order to meet the ambitious targets we have set for children, young people and adults. If resources are not being used to best effect, I will not hesitate to ensure they are switched to where they are most needed, and will notify Parliament of any significant movements.
    Allocation of DfES SR2002 settlement

    £ millions

    2003–04

    2004–05

    2005–06

    Total allocation1

    49,632

    53,039

    57,965

    Of which

    Resource2

    21,143

    22,286

    24,143

    Capital

    4,061

    5,023

    5,753

    EFS

    24,428

    25,731

    28,069

    Breakdown of Allocation

    Sure Start

    850

    1,223

    1,510

    Of which

    Sure Start spending

    734

    1,005

    1,299

    Planned use of Sure Start EYF3

    -203

    -103

    -129

    Assumed spending through EFS

    319

    322

    340

    Schools allocations

    31,597

    33,492

    35,984

    Of which

    EFS (excluding assumed spending on Sure Start

    24,109

    25,410

    27,729

    Schools Resource—Standards Fund

    1,567

    1,398

    1,631

    Schools Resource—Leadership Incentive Grant

    175

    175

    175

    Schools Resource—School Standards Grant

    799

    849

    872

    Schools Resource—Threshold and Performance Pay

    742

    844

    0

    Schools Resource—National College for School Leadership

    77

    87

    92

    Schools Resource—Academies and CTCs

    126

    184

    245

    Schools Resource—Innovation

    10

    10

    10

    Schools Resource—primary Modern Foreign Languages

    4

    8

    10

    Schools Resource—Creativity

    5

    5

    10

    Schools Resource—Initial Teacher Training4

    345

    375

    415

    Schools resource—Music and Dance Scheme

    14

    16

    18

    Schools Resource—Assisted Places Scheme

    30

    10

    3

    Schools Resource—Gifted and Talented5

    8

    8

    8

    Schools Resource—other Central spending

    186

    154

    264

    Leadership Reserve

    0

    50

    100

    Schools Capital—School Buildings6

    3,016

    3,487

    3,959

    Schools Capital—ICT

    384

    422

    443

    74WS

    Skills

    9,227

    9,859

    10,487

    Of which

    Learning and Skills Council Allocation7

    7,923

    8,496

    9,074

    Non LSC—Adult Skills

    Prisoner education

    85

    110

    125

    Sector Skills Councils

    42

    45

    48

    RDA: Skills fund

    43

    43

    43

    Ufl

    44

    44

    44

    UK Online centres (inc capital)

    14

    20

    28

    Financial Support for Adults

    66

    106

    106

    Employer Training Pilots

    130

    0

    0

    Adult Basic Skills Development

    76

    76

    76

    Non LSC—adult skills (small programmes)

    49

    49

    45

    Union Learning Fund

    11

    11

    11

    Non LSC— Youth

    Connexions Service8

    455

    500

    515

    Connexions Card

    5

    15

    14

    QCA

    60

    60

    60

    Youth Service disabled access

    8

    8

    8

    Millennium Volunteers

    15

    15

    15

    Non LSC—14[en rule]19 (small programmes)

    89

    100

    98

    Gap Year

    5

    Non LSC other

    Non LSC [en rule]FE

    78

    130

    147

    International programmes

    29

    31

    30

    Other

    7,958

    8,464

    9,984

    Of which

    Children's Fund

    200

    200

    200

    DfES admin. Costs and related spending9

    260

    281

    277

    OFSTED

    203

    206

    215

    Service Development Fund

    0

    0

    500

    Unallocated funds10

    7,379

    8,109

    8,752

    Behaviour—Post 14 Contribution11

    17

    17

    40

    Planned use of EYF3

    -101

    -349

    0

    Additional allocations12 PFI credits

    850

    1,050

    1,200

    Transfers to EFS for teacher pensions

    590

    610

    640

    1 An additional £109 million from the Windfall Tax margin allocated in the 2002 Pre-Budget Report.
    2 Excluding capital grants (in the Capital Line) and money
    transferred to EFS.
    3 Subject to Parliamentary approval, the Department plans to
    use accumulated End Year Flexibility to supplement the funds
    available from the SR2002 settlement.
    4 Includes miscellaneous support costs.
    5 Excludes Standards Fund Gifted and Talented programmes.
    6 Excluding PFI credits.
    7 These figures are lower than those published in the LSC's Grant Letter issued on 5 December. The Grant Letter figures include an element of the funds transferred for teachers pensions contributions and CMF funding which is allocated outside the SR settlement.
    8 This figure includes provision for VAT.
    9 Includes Departmental spending on research and central spending on advertising and publicity.
    10 Includes Departmental unallocated provision, Higher Education Baselines and funding to be allocated for Higher Education.
    11 This contributes towards the total Behaviour package of £13411491186 million announced on 12 December as the remainder is funded through the standards fund and other budgets.
    12 Not included in figures above. Excludes Education Maintenance Allowances which are funded through AME.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Police
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham):
    On 5 December I placed in the Library a copy of the Home Secretary's proposals for allocation of police grant for England in 2003–04. I have today placed in the Library a revised copy of those proposals which includes information on allocations of police grant for Wales in 2003–04. The proposals in respect of England are unchanged from the earlier ones. The Home Secretary and I intend to implement the revised proposals subject to consideration of any representations we receive about them and to the approval of the House.

    Funding the police service properly is a top priority for this government. The settlement I am announcing today continues that commitment. The total provision for policing in England and Wales, to be supported by grant in 2003–04 is £9,683 million. This is a cash rise of £566 million or 6.2 per cent over the provision for 2002–03. This includes principal formula police grant, direct Home Office spending, the standard spending on which revenue support grant is based.

    Provisional grants (i.e. Home Office Police Grant, Revenue Support Grant and National Non Domestic Rates) for Welsh police authorities in 2003–04 compared with 2002–03 are given in Table 1. Where Welsh police authorities fall be low the 3 per cent "floor" applied to English police authorities, they will receive Home Office special grant to bring them up to the minimum increase of 3 per cent. Grant increases for individual authorities vary. Differences between authorities reflect funding formula changes resulting from the recent consultation process over formula changes and year-to-year data changes. Changes to the police funding formula:

    The police funding formula that distributes Home Office police grant to police authorities has been reviewed as part of an overall review of local authority funding formulae.

    We consulted on proposals for the police funding formula that would make the policing formula more responsive to current policing needs. The six options for change relating specifically to the police funding formula published in the consultation paper were to:

    update the activity analysis data on which over 70 per cent of the formula allocation is based;

    incorporate the £30million Rural Policing Fund into the main grant formula:

    remove the remaining component that was still based on police establishments;

    increase the personal crime component by 5 per cent;

    increase the public order component by 5 per cent;

    introduce a deprivation component at 2 per cent.

    76WS
    Consultation on the proposals was wide ranging. In the light of comments received, the Home Secretary has decided that two changes will be made to the police funding formula. These changes were widely supported by the policing community during the consultation process.

    Activity analysis data has been updated to make the formula more responsive to current policing needs. Up to this year, the pattern of resources across policing functions has been calculated using data collected in 1995. It is important to bring it up to date to reflect contemporary pressures on the police service.

    The Home Secretary has agreed to reduction of the `establishment component' in the formula from 10 per cent to zero. This change finally removes the old damping mechanism that cushioned police authorities from the full impact of change when the present formula was introduced in 1995. The component had been reduced from 50 per cent to 10 per cent before the moratorium on formula change was introduced in 1999. The change will complete the process of phasing out the damping. Other damping mechanisms, in the form of floors and ceilings on grant change, are now in place.

    The Home Secretary has announced already that the Rural Policing Fund will remain unchanged as a separate £30 million fund to meet the particular needs of forces with the most widespread populations. A proportion of this will be available to police forces in Wales. There has been no change to the method of allocation. Data changes have been applied as usual which accounts for the year-on-year variations in allocations for authorities.

    Specific grants for police authorities:

    As well as general grant, police authorities will receive additional funding through several specific grants for particular schemes. Some of these grants will be available to all forces in England and Wales, others to specific forces to help meet their particular requirements. Funding for some of these initiatives will be available on a matched funding basis. I estimate that specific grants up to £23 million will be available to Welsh police authorities.

    The main specific grants are:

    Crime Fighting Fund: this will continue for the three years 2003–04 to 2005–06. Police officers recruited between April 2000 and March 2003 through the CFF will continue to be funded at 100 per cent. There will be funds for the recruitment of a further 600 officers in 2003–04 and more in the subsequent two years. Officers recruited in 2003–04 and future years will be funded at 75 per cent;

    Airwave: further funds will be available for the startup operational costs of authorities taking Airwave in 2003–04 and to enable those forces who have the Airwave service to purchase additional menu services. The Home Office will continue to meet the core charges for the service provider. Additional capital will be available to police authorities.
    77WS
    Basic Command Unit (BCU) funds: £50 million for BCU's, that are at the forefront of local policing. Grants will be targeted towards forces with BCU's in high crime areas to help reduce crime in partnership with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships;

    Police Negotiating Board (PNB): the pay and conditions package agreed by PNB is fully provided for in the settlement. The package introduces new elements into police pay such as payments for the most experienced officers who can demonstrate a high level of professional competence and extra rewards for officers in the most difficult and demanding posts. A separate special grant is available to underpin the PNB proposals for special priority payments.

    Community Support Officers (CSOs): funding will be available to support the costs of CSOs who will free up police officer time, will play a crucial role in providing-reassurance and who will have some powers to deal with low level crime and anti-social behaviour. The provision will fund in full CSOs recruited in 2002–03 and fund those recruited in 2003–04 at 50 per cent.

    Police authority capital:

    The Home Secretary and I intend to allocate to police authorities in England and Wales provision of capital grant and supplementary credit approvals of approximately £190 million in 2003–04. Within this allocation funds will be set aside for a second Premises Improvement Fund to which forces may bid for funds specifically to improve the working conditions of police officers.

    In addition capital grants for the introduction of Airwave will be made available to those authorities taking up the radio communications service in 2003–04. Similar arrangements were made for 2002–03.

    There will be capital provision for the case and custody project of the Criminal Justice IT system. This will be supported by resource funding as well.

    Central spending on policing:

    The main specific items are the DNA expansion programme, the National Strategy for Police Information Systems and the Airwave contractor's core charges. In addition, provision is made for the costs of organisations supporting policing, mainly the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), Centrex (the Central Police Training and Development Authority) and scientific and technical facilities.

    Efficiency:

    The settlement continues to take account of the Home Secretary's commitment to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the police service. Future police grant allocations will be considered in the light of police authorities meeting the 2 per cent efficiency improvements. The PNB agreement includes a service-wide target to secure a 15 per cent reduction in overtime expenditure over the three years from 2003–04. Implementation of activity based costing in forces will be another factor considered when assessing the efficiency target.
    78WS
    Conclusion:

    We are keeping our promise to the police and public to match reform with investment. In November we published the first National Policing Plan which sets out strategic national priorities for the police service. With this settlement we are delivering our investment in the police service by providing the resources to help the police do their job more effectively. The police service is receiving the resources to benefit from an historic pay and conditions deal and an action plan to cut bureaucracy. At the same time both the police service and the public will continue to benefit from record police numbers that are helping to deliver on high visibility policing targets and to reduce the fear of crime.

    Table 1: Police Grant Allocations by Welsh police authority (includes Home office special grants to maintain floor increases but excludes all other specific and special grants)

    Police Authority

    2002/03 Allocation £m

    2003/04 Allocation £m

    % Change

    Dyfed-Powys

    (1)

    47.9

    49.3

    3%

    Gwent

    66.7

    69.6

    4.3%

    North Wales

    (2)

    70.1

    73.4

    4.6%

    South Wales

    (1)

    158.3

    163.0

    3%

    Total

    343.0

    355.2

    3.6%

    Notes:

    1. Grant allocations for 2003–04 include special grant from the Home Office to ensure a 3 per cent. minimum increase over 2002–03.

    2. Grant allocation for 2002–03 included special grant from the Home Office to ensure a 2.3 per cent. minimum increase over 2002/03.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD & RURAL AFFAIRS

  Hunting Bill
  The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael):
  As requested during the final stages of the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons on Monday night, I wish to respond by written statement to the debate.

  The Government has a specific manifesto commitment to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on hunting with dogs. The manifesto also made it clear that we have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting.

  Many of the questions raised in the debate can be answered by a careful reading of the Bill itself, it seeks to be tough but fair. It seeks to resolve the issue in a way which is based on the right principles tested against evidence, that will make good law, that is enforceable and that will stand the test of time. But as well as being practical it deals clearly with the moral issue. At the heart of the Bill is the key purpose—to prevent cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. It tackles cruelty but it also recognises the need to deal with pests and to protect livestock and crops.
  79WS
  The standards for the utility and cruelty tests are set out in the Bill. The test of utility requires the activity to be shown to be necessary in an area to prevent serious damage by the quarry species to livestock, crops, property or biodiversity. The definition of cruelty is well established in law: it is the causing of unnecessary or avoidable suffering. It is important to be clear that no Bill could prevent all suffering associated with pest control. What the Bill does is to ensure that hunting with dogs is permitted only where it is necessary, and where it is established that the activity proposed would cause the least suffering. The cruelty test is set out in clause 8 of the Bill and demonstrates that suggestions that the Bill would cause more suffering are mistaken.

  The two tests have been applied consistently to all the activities and based on the evidence.

  In the case of deer hunting, this is banned absolutely because it does not meet the cruelty test. Stalking and shooting will always be available and are less likely to cause less suffering. This is made clear by paragraph 6.39 of the Burns Report:
  "Stalking, if carried out to a high standard and with the availability of a dog or dogs to help find any wounded deer that escape, is in principle the better method of culling deer from an animal welfare perspective. In particular, it obviates the need to chase the deer in the way which occurs in hunting".
  The Government's response to concern about the effect a ban on deer hunting may have on the deer population is to secure the control of the populations through local deer management groups. These groups operate both in areas where there is deer hunting and in other areas where there are healthy deer herds and we will encourage them to operate effectively in all areas.

  Hare coursing is also banned absolutely because the intention of the activity is to test the speed and agility of dogs and not to control hare numbers. Burns (para 5.94) made clear that there is little or no need to control hare numbers and also (para 6.67–68) drew a distinction between the suffering caused to hares that were killed in coursing and those killed in hare hunting. I have seen nothing in more recent evidence to lead me to disagree with Burn's conclusions.

  There are no restrictions on hunting with dogs of rats and rabbits because this method of controlling the populations satisfies the two tests and causes less suffering than alternative methods of control such as poisoning or snaring.

  The proposal in the Bill that Parliament should establish a system for making case-by-case decisions in regard to other hunting activities is to ensure that cruelty is prevented. An applicant would have to show that both the tests are met in the case of the particular hunting proposed. The applicant's evidence would need to cover any relevant local factors, the period for which the applicant undertakes the activity, and what hunting practices the applicant wishes to undertake. A designated animal welfare body will also be able to provide evidence regarding the application. The registrar (and in the event of an appeal the tribunal) must determine, on the basis of an objective assessment of the evidence provided by both the applicant and the animal welfare body, whether the proposed hunting satisfies the two tests. If appropriate, for example on
  80WS
  questions of bio-diversity, the registrar (or the tribunal) may seek advice from English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales.

  This is not a matter of balancing the two tests. Both tests must be satisfied for hunting to continue. In other words, the registrar or the tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed hunting would be for one of the purposes set out in clause 8(1) and that purpose cannot reasonably be achieved by a method that would cause less suffering. So hunting will be permitted only where no method that causes less suffering is available for achieving a necessary purpose.

  I was asked about the effect of the Bill on arrangements for the disposal of fallen stock. It should be remembered that the European Unions Animal Byproducts Regulation will ban routine on farm burial and burning of animal carcasses from 30 April 2003. This will mean that the existing fallen stock service provided by a number of hunts could only continue with considerable investment in new equipment. So the future of the hunts 1 service is in doubt irrespective of the Bill. The Government has been holding discussions with the livestock and disposal industries with the aim of developing a national fallen stock scheme.

  I look forward to discussions in committee where many of the detailed points raised during the debate can be fully addressed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Alternatives to the Baton Round
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy):
  Today I have placed in the Library a copy of the Report on the third phase of the research programme into alternative policing approaches towards the management of conflict. Copies of the reports on the previous two phases of the programme were placed in the Library of the House on 4 April and 30 November 2001.

  The programme was set up, in response to the Patten recommendations on public order equipment, to:
  establish whether a less potentially lethal alternative to the baton round is available; and
  review the public order equipment which is presently available or could be developed in order to expand the range of tactical options available to operational commanders.
  I am grateful to the Steering Group, and to the many contributors to the programme, including those in government service, the police, academics and other experts, for their sustained commitment.

  In summary, the report:
  makes clear that there is no off the shelf, commercially available, effective and acceptable alternative to the baton round at this time,
  gives further details on the decision of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to place an order for six vehicle-mounted water cannon announced on 18 July this year;
  describes the extensive research into alternative less lethal systems conducted over the past twelve months;

  81WS
  highlights the efforts made in developing an integrated and community-oriented approach to the management of conflict. This report contains both an important account of the approach developed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and the international context.
  The report describes the progress in researching two alternative technologies offered by the private sector, building on the comprehensive evaluation in the phase 2 report. It also sets out the urgent development research that the Northern Ireland Office has commissioned from the Government's own professional advisers. This is currently assessing the scope to develop both an attenuated energy (perhaps soft-nosed) projectile and a discriminate irritant projectile. A further report on the potential of the two alternative systems will be published in due course, although completion of any programme through to manufacture would inevitably be resource intensive and take several years.

  The aim of this programme is not only to take research forward, but also to encourage wider debate about the issue of conflict management. The programme has been conducted in an open and transparent way, including publication of developments over the past twelve months and presentations at conferences. The report invites comments on a number of specific issues, that have particular application in Northern Ireland.

  Northern Ireland Census 2001
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson):
  Copies of the second report of the Northern Ireland Census 2001—Northern Ireland Census 2001 Key Statistics' have today been laid in the Northern Ireland Assembly as required by statute. Copies have also been lodged in the House of Commons Library and the House of Lords Library.

TREASURY

  Privately Operated Tolls (VAT)
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey):
  On 12 September 2000, the European Court of Justice ruled that privately operated tolls should bear VAT. The Government will implement this ruling with effect from 1 February 2003, once consultations with toll operators have been concluded.

  At the time of this ruling, the Government made clear its intention that motorists should not pay higher toll charges as a result of the imposition of VAT. Our intention remains that tolls will not increase on account of VAT being levied from 1 February.

  Debt Management Office
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly):
  The second published Debt Management Account covering the year to the 31 March 2002 is being laid before the House and published today. Copies will be available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Tonnage Tax
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo):
  The tonnage tax was introduced in 2000 as part of a package of measures
  82WS
  designed to help revive the UK shipping industry. In order to place a check on the cost of the tonnage tax, there are rules that restrict the amount of capital allowances that can be claimed by a lessor for expenditure on a ship that is used for activities within the tonnage tax. These rules apply only to finance leases. Some lessors are, however, now offering long-term leases for ships that have the many of the characteristics of finance leases without being finance leases in form. Such leases can be used to allow lessors to claim significantly more in capital allowances than had been intended when the tonnage tax was introduced. The extra cost is not justified and does nothing to further the objectives of the regime. The next Finance Bill will, therefore, contain a provision extending the restrictions. The provision will take effect for leases entered into on or after today.

  The Inland Revenue are today publishing further details of the proposal. Draft legislation containing the provision will be issued shortly and the Inland Revenue will consult with those concerned on the details of that legislation.

  Home Care Services (VAT)
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey):
  The introduction of state registers for domiciliary care agencies provides the Government with the opportunity to extend the VAT exemption for welfare services to those services provided by state-regulated private welfare agencies. I am pleased to announce that when the House returns from the Christmas recess the Government will lay the necessary change before Parliament.

FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH

  Council of the European Union
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane):

  Date

  Location

  Event

  January

  9

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  9

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council (To Be Confirmed)

  16

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  20

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP (Evening)

  20

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  21

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  24

  Nafplion

  Employment Council (Ministerial informal)

  27–28

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations Council

  28

  Brussels

  EU-ASEAN Ministerial

  30

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  February

  5

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  6–7

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  10–11

  Brussels

  AGRICULTURE & FISHERIES Council (To Be Confirmed)

  13

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  17

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP (evening)

  18

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  20

  Brussels

  EDUCATION, YOUTH & CULTURE Council (to be confirmed)

  83WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  22

  Thessaloniki

  Energy Council (Ministerial Informal)

  24–25

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations Council Agriculture & Fisheries

  26

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  27–28

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs Council

  28

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  March

  1–2

  loannina

  Informal Education

  3

  Brussels

  Competitiveness Council

  4

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  6

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  6

  Luxembourg

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  6

  Luxembourg

  EUROGROUP (evening)

  7

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  7

  Luxembourg

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  13

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  14–15

  Athens

  Informal Defence Meeting

  17–18

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  18–19

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External Relations Council

  21

  BRUSSELS

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  27

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  27–28

  Luxembourg

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council)

  27–28

  Athens

  EU-Rio Group, EU-MERCOSUR

  28–29

  Veria

  Informal Justice & Home Affairs

  31

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council (to be confirmed)

  April

  2

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  3–4

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  4

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs

  4–6

  Hania (Crete)

  Informal ECOFIN (Ministerial)

  5

  Lisbon

  Europe—Africa Summit

  5

  loannina

  Ministerial Meeting on Education (Informal)

  10

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  11–13

  Chania

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  14

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  14

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries

  16

  Athens

  European Conference

  16

  Athens

  Signature Of The Accession (Provisional Date)

  23

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  24–25

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  May

  2–4

  (Greece)

  Gymnich (Informal Foreign Ministers)

  5

  Athens

  Informal Environment (Ministerial)

  5–6

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council (To be confirmed)

  8

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  12–13

  Corfu

  tAgriculture (Ministerial Informal)

  12–13

  Brussels

  Competitiveness

  12

  Brussels

  EUROGRUP

  13

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  14

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  84WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  14

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  EU—ACP Ministerial

  16–17

  Halkidiki

  Informal Regional Policy (Ministerial)

  16–17

  Cruise off

  Informal Transport & Merchant Marine (Ministerial) Greece

  17

  Brussels

  EU—W. Balkans (Zagreb Process)

  19

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (+ Defence)

  20

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  22

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  24

  Thessaloniki

  Informal Culture (Ministerial)

  26–27

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  26–27

  Athens

  EUROMED Conference (MidTerm Ministerial)

  27

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  28

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  30–31

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  31

  St. Petesburg

  EU—Russia Summit

  June

  2

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP

  2–3

  Alexandroupol

  Development Co-operation (Ministerial Informal)

  2–3

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  3

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  4

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  5–6

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  5–6

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs Council

  5–6

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  6

  Rhodes

  Informal Public Administration

  11

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  11–12

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  12–13

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  20

  Halkidiki

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  21

  Halkidiki

  Zagreb Process II Summit

  22

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  24

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  July

  10

  Varese

  Informal Council/Troika

  11–12

  Varese

  Informal Council of Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs.

  17

  Treviso

  Informal meeting of the EU Employment Committee.

  21

  Rome

  Meeting of MISEP focal points. (Mutual Information System on Employment Policies in Europe)

  24

  Milan

  European Conference on Discrimination.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks):
  I am pleased to announce that 88 of the 135 bids submitted to the Help Fund have been successful. As around a quarter of these

  85WS
  are joint bids from groups of Local Authorities, the Fund will help 272 Authorities overall. The Help Fund was set up to address core problems in Housing Benefit delivery at a local level and is a practical demonstration of the Government's commitment to working with local authorities to improve the standard of Housing Benefit administration. The funded projects totalling over £4.6 million will make significant improvements in areas such as training, customer service and IT capabilities. I am placing a full list of the successful bids in the library today.

CULTURE, MEDIA & SPORT

  DCMS/Strategy Unit Report
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell):
  The joint DCMS/Strategy Unit report on sport and physical activity will be published today.

  Sport is an important part of many people's lives. It defines us as a nation. It teaches us about life. We learn self-discipline and teamwork from it. We learn how to win with grace and lose with dignity. It gets us fit. It keeps us healthy. It forms a central part of the cultural and recreational parts of our lives. Millions of us are involved in one way or another: as players, as coaches or officials, organising clubs, teams and fixtures, or just watching.

  Sport and physical activity can help the Government achieve key objectives. Crucially, it can help us tackle serious health issues. It can also help to contribute to other areas, such as crime reduction, social inclusion and help with the development of young people in schools.

  Because of our commitment to sport it is now receiving unprecedented levels of public funding—through both the Lottery and the Exchequer. This joint report on sport and physical activity is about how to get more of that cash to the front line and spend less on bureaucracy, on box ticking and procedures. It makes some fundamental recommendations of how to reform the public and other structures which handle money in sport. And it presents our view of how we would like the sporting world to develop over the next 15 to 20 years.

  The key messages in the report are that we should:
  increase participation in sport, because of the health benefits it can bring and, together with its potential to help reduce crime, tapkle social exclusion and provide a better education for young people;
  enhance our international success, building on our achievements at the Olympic Games in Sydney and the Commonwealth Games in Manchester;
  adopt a more focused and strategic approach when bidding for major sporting events, with each of the role of each of the stakeholders being clearly defined;
  remove layers of bureaucracy and help ensure that more funding and help gets to where it's needed most: to the athletes and the thousands of clubs up and down the country.
  We can't get there alone. And nor should we. But with the help of the sports councils, governing bodies, local authorities and all the other organisations and individuals in sport, we are determined to achieve that.
  86WS
  Copies of the report are available on the website at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/reports.

  Video-on-Demand Services
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell):
  I am pleased to announce that the videoon-demand industry has made excellent progress with the development of a binding code of practice to apply when video-on-demand services are de-regulated, and have written to me with details of that Code. I am satisfied that the Code represents a system that will provide adequate protection for children, and to subscribers to video-on-demand services. I have asked the industry to keep me informed of its progress in establishing the self-regulatory system set out in the Code, so that it can come fully into effect on enactment of the relevant provisions of the Communications Bill.

  I have placed copies of the Code of Practice in the libraries of both Houses and the text is also available on the DCMS Departmental website at www.culture.gov.uk.

TRANSPORT

  Motorcyclists' Visors
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson):
  I have decided to retain the current limit of tint for visors at 50 per cent. following a three month consultation on possible options.

  The large majority of motorcyclists were in favour of dark visors which they regard as the best way to reduce glare. Road safety organisations expressed concerns about the safety of other vulnerable road users, given the potential for misuse of dark visors at dusk or at night.

  My decision has not been taken lightly and I considered the views and contributions from everyone who responded to the consultation. However, I remain unconvinced that the wearing of dark visors would not present dangers to road safety.

  A technological solution may provide the best way forward. I would urge standards bodies to encourage the development of such solutions so that in the longer-term visor designs lend themselves equally to both day and night time use.

  In-Flight Security
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling):
  The UK aviation security regime is one of the most developed in the world. It was further tightened in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks in the United States, and is kept under permanent review.

  Earlier this year that process of review led the Government to decide that the existing package of measures for in-flight security should be reinforced, and deterrence increased, by the development of a capability to place covert, specially trained armed police officers aboard UK civil aircraft, should that be warranted. That capability now exists, and is a sensible and measured addition to the range of security measures we

  87WS
  have available for addressing the threat to UK interests and to UK aviation. That threat remains a real one, but this new capability has not been developed and is not being announced now in response to any new or specific intelligence.

  This further security measure joins others the Government has taken to increase security both on the ground at airports and in flight since the attacks in the USA. We have stepped up the search regimes for staff, passengers and their hand and hold baggage, vehicles, cargo and catering, with a particular emphasis on flights going to key destinations such as the USA; added to the range of articles not able to be taken aboard aircraft; and extended the National Aviation Security Programme to smaller aircraft and aerodromes. Additional funding has been made available for airport policing. We have also accepted in principle all of the recommendations of Sir John Wheeler's recent review of airport security, which will in particular enhance the co-ordination of the security effort across different departments and agencies. On in-flight security, we are moving faster than the international community at large to ensure UK aircraft are fitted with intrusion-resistant flight deck doors, and last month we acted to ensure that flight deck doors on foreign aircraft are kept locked, as they have been on UK aircraft since very soon after the US attacks. We have also placed strict limits on those able to be on the flight deck of UK aircraft.

  The Government will continue to work with the UK airline industry on sustainable measures for responding to the terrorist threat.

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn):
  The sixth report to Parliament on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) was published today.

  The report, entitled "PPRS: Sixth Report to Parliament", covers the management and operation of the 1999 scheme, which was introduced in October 1999 including the delivery of the 4.5 per cent. price cut. It explains the Government's objectives for the scheme and gives consolidated information on company annual financial returns. The report sets out the contribution made to the economy by the UK based pharmaceutical industry and sets out the conclusions of the joint Department of Health and Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) study into the extent of competition in the supply of branded medicines to the National Health Service.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn):
  The joint Department of Health and Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) study into the extent of competition in the supply of branded medicines to the NHS was published today.

  An integral part of the current pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) agreement that took effect on 1 October 1999 is a joint assessment by the Department and the ABPI of the scope, pace and change and practical impact of competition in the supply and use of branded medicines for the NHS. The results of this
  88WS
  study will be available to both the Government and the pharmaceutical industry in considering the future direction of policy on the PPRS.

  The study comprised seven components and work on each of the components was undertaken jointly by the Department and the ABPI with some elements of the analysis contracted out to third parties. The study allowed an unprecedented level of shared data collection and analysis between the Department and the branded pharmaceutical industry in the UK.

  Copies of the study, entitled "PPRS: The Study into the Extent of Competition in the Supply of Branded Medicines to the NHS", have been placed in the

HEALTH

  NHS Franchising
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn):
  National Health Service franchising is a new approach being taken by the Department to find the best available managers to take over the functions of the chief executive and, where necessary, other senior management positions in, and to identify organisations which might be called upon to exercise the functions of, some of the most poorly performing NHS trusts in England. The prime goal under new franchised management arrangements will be to address the particular areas where a trust has performed poorly and to demonstrate its capacity to sustain improved performance.

  Franchising will bring in new management skills to trusts that have been under-performing, as part of the Government's wider drive to raise standards in all parts of the NHS.

  Until now, NHS franchises have only been awarded to suitably qualified people within the NHS. The Department has now widened these opportunities to other areas of the public sector, the voluntary sector and the private sector, as well as to suitably qualified individuals, by inviting formal applications from both within and outside the NHS for inclusion on the NHS franchising register of expertise.

  The names of the organisations on the National Health Service franchising register of expertise have been published today and a copy has been placed in the Library. It is also available on the Department of Health's website at www.doh.qov.uldnhsfranchisinq. The register includes 62 NHS trusts whose three star status gives them automatic inclusion on the register, Trent Strategic Health Authority, and eight private sector organizations—five of which are based in Britain, one in Germany, one in Canada and one has its parent company based in Sweden.

  The NHS Appointments Commission set up an independent panel, under the chairmanship of Sir William Wells, to assess the applications received from organisations and individuals who expressed an interest following national advertisements in May 2002. The criteria for entry to the register were designed to assess interested parties' expertise and commitment to the

  89WS
  public service ethos necessary to turn round failing NHS organisations and services in the future. The criteria included:

  a commitment to the ethos of public service;

  expertise in managing and improving performance in large and complex service delivery organisations;

  an excellent track record in both financial and human resource management.

  Following the July 2002 performance star ratings, the management of two zero star trusts will be franchised. These are United Bristol Hospitals NHS Trust and Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust.

  The Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust, Birmingham, will also be franchised following an investigation around the mismanagement of waiting list figures. As a result the Trust has been reclassified to zero star. The Trust held a disciplinary hearing at which the chief executive was found guilty of gross misconduct and summarily dismissed. The data underlying the Trust's star rating has been reviewed and the performance rating recalculated.

  The Department will shortly be inviting those on the NHS franchising register of expertise to tender for the franchises in these trusts early in the new year, along with the interim management team at Bath.

SCOTLAND

  Sunday Working (Scotland)
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell):
  Scottish shop workers and betting workers who do not wish to work on Sundays are not protected in the same way as similar workers in England and Wales. I am therefore launching today a consultation exercise on a possible change in the law to end this discrimination.

  This follows representations to me about employers moving away from a voluntary arrangement which gave Scottish workers the same rights available under the law to workers in England and Wales. The consultation paper sets out a case for extending to Scotland legal protection in the Employment Rights Act 1996. It invites comments by Friday, 14 March 2003.

  I have written to key employer and employee organisations across Scotland inviting them to meet with Scotland Office Ministers to discuss our proposals.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

TRADE & INDUSTRY

  Gas and Electricity Markets Authority
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson):
  The current Chair of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority—who is also the Chief Executive of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—plans to step down in October 2003. My rt hon Friend the Secretary of State and I have decided that separate individuals should be sought for the two roles. Accordingly, we are seeking a non-executive Chair, who will provide leadership and direction to the other members of the
  90WS
  Authority and to the Chief Executive, has an appreciation of how competitive markets operate, and be committed to Ofgem's social and environmental obligations. The Chair-designate will join the Authority on appointment initially as a non-executive member, and thereafter will take the lead in the selection of a Chief Executive.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Bain Review
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott):
  The repeal of Section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 is an essential element of the move to risk based fire cover which is at the centre of the recommendations of the Independent Review of the Fire Service—the Bain review. I announced on Monday 16 December that I would take the earliest opportunity to make the necessary amendment to the Fire Services Act. I am now announcing that I shall be proposing an amendment to the Local Government Bill which is currently before the House.

  This demonstrates the Government's commitment to fulfil our part of the programme of modernisation proposed by the Bain Review.

  Fire Service Pay Dispute
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott):
  I am pleased to announce that the Armed Forces personnel deployed on firefighting duties have been given the extended break over Christmas they richly deserve. This does not imply any reduction in our commitment to the provision of emergency fire cover during any further industrial action.

  However, the FBU have called off the nine-day strike it had planned to start on 16 December and have not announced any plans to strike again until 28 January. The FBU would be required to give seven days notice of any further strike.

DEFENCE

  Meteorological Office
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie):
  The first stage of the Quinquennial Review (QQR) of the Met Office has been completed. This has focused primarily on the future status of the Met Office and on the arrangements for strategic oversight by its parent department, the Ministry of Defence.

  The Stage 1 report examined a number of alternative status options for the Met Office but concluded that the Met Office should remain a Trading Fund Agency of the Ministry of Defence for the foreseeable future. It concluded also that there was a need for a substantial reform of the arrangements for oversight of the Agency by its Owner, the Secretary of State for Defence. The

  91WS
  recommended reforms comprise the re-shaping of the Defence Met Board into a UK Met Board, including in its membership representatives of the three principal Civil Stakeholder interests in the Met Office's product (Environment, Transport and Civil Contingencies) alongside the existing Defence Stakeholder interest; the adoption of a more proactive stance by the new Board, with the focus on identifying in advance and resolving key strategic issues so as to provide a clear framework
  92WS
  policy framework for Met Office management; and the provision of adequate administrative support to the new Board.

  I have today given my endorsement of these recommendations, and action is now in hand to give effect to them as soon as possible. It is planned that the UK Met Board should come into existence early in 2003. A copy of the QQR Stage 1 report has been placed in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAI RMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Temperate Food: Balance of Trade
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the balance of trade in temperate food matters.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government's aim is to promote sustainable and competitive farming and food manufacturing industries which produce safe and attractive products that consumers both at home and abroad want to purchase, but we have to recognise that we live in an increasingly globalised world. The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food for England, published on 12th December, sets out how the Government will work with industry, rural and environmental organisations and consumers to help to achieve those objectives.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that over the past 10 years UK self-sufficiency in food that we can grow here has fallen by 14 per cent and that in the same period the deficit in trade on our temperate food has doubled from £2.6 billion to £5.3 billion? Are the Government satisfied with that situation?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we believe that the food and farming industries need to improve their productivity and efficiency if they are to compete successfully in domestic and international markets. The Government cannot subsidise the industry in order to achieve particular levels of self-sufficiency or exports. In an increasingly globalised world the pursuit of self-sufficiency for its own end would be neither necessary nor appropriate.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, if food security matters in this modern world, is it not the home market and the home territory that matter and not Europe which, unlike this country, has a food surplus? If food security concerns are important, are not petroleum substitution crops—biofuels—likely to be more important in the future than food crops?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I accept the importance of the crops that the noble Lord mentioned. They offer farmers a new form of generating income. DEFRA is discussing with stakeholders the establishment of a new centre of excellence for non-food
776
crops in the UK. A government/industry forum is addressing that matter. It is extremely important to recognise the contribution that energy crops can make.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's response in regard to subsidies, but is not the Government's attitude almost dangerously complacent in view of the fact that the deficit on temperate foods is part of a much wider and widening general trade deficit which is leading some people in some places to look with somewhat critical eyes at this country's credit rating?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the claim that the Government are complacent on this issue is insupportable. The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food sets out in detail the ways that we seek to tackle the sector we are discussing within the total economy. The strategy provides more money for marketing, processing and development and offers help as regards training and advice for farmers. It also rewards farmers for providing environmental goods. It is a new strategy. We work with all sectors of the industry. There is a general problem with regard to the import/export imbalance. DEFRA is working with the industry to try to overcome that deficit.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate the Government on producing a new strategy. However, we must ensure that farmers are aware of that. At the moment our farmers are saying that it is all very well for them to produce temperate food but they are not competing on a level playing field with other countries, even within Europe. For example, what subsidy do tomato growers in the Netherlands receive? What are the Government doing in Brussels about that matter to try to ensure that there is fairness, at least within the European market?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government and DEFRA are committed to ensuring that our farming industry competes with others on a totally level playing field. I am not able to comment in detail on whether there is a subsidy to tomato growers in a particular country. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness on that matter. We believe that the work we are doing is contributing to making our produce extremely competitive. We are permanently on our guard to protect the interests of our industry both within the European Union and in the wider context.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that productivity is not the problem— the productivity of UK agriculture is excellent—the problem is that our agriculture is not profitable? The single most important factor in this regard—I hope that it can be implemented in 2003—is successfully to negotiate entry into the euro. That would result in far higher profitability for UK farming and would ensure a radical improvement in the present deficit on trade.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, during the course of the coming 12 months the Government will seek to establish whether entry to the euro would be appropriate for the UK. Many in the food production and farming industries, particularly those involved in agriculture, share the noble Lord's view.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that perhaps the best way of getting a level playing field on which we can compete is to put much greater political effort into a root and branch change in the structure of the common agricultural policy? That is fundamentally necessary if we are to meet the obligations that we all so readily applauded after the Doha conference.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Tomlinson is absolutely right. We are committed to reform of the common agricultural policy, and have argued that within Europe and with our partners in Europe. Commissioner Fischler presented a new draft EU modalities paper that considered all the areas, including a commitment to zero duty for 50 per cent total imports from developing countries. The work that we do to change all that is wrong with the common agricultural policy has to be seen in the context of our commitment to developing countries, and our policy of seeking not to do anything to damage the interests of developing countries, as my noble friend recognised.

Remand in Custody
11.13 a.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Lord Corbett of Castle Vale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of (a) men and (b) women remanded in custody are subsequently imprisoned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, an estimate based on information held on the Home Office court proceedings database is that 48 per cent of men and 36 per cent of women who were remanded in custody at some point in their case were sentenced to immediate custody. The figures are for the year 2000.
There may be cases when a custodial sentence is not passed because the courts take into account the period of time that the defendant has spent on remand. Some of those sentenced to immediate custody will not in fact be returned to prison, because the sentence imposed has already been served on remand in custody.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Will he confirm that the number of prisoners on remand rose by 12 per cent to just over 13,000 in the 12 months to last October? Will he encourage the National Probation Service to redouble its efforts to persuade courts to make more use of the wide
778
range of non-custodial sentences for non-violent crime, so that we stand a better chance of reducing the prison population and minimising the risk of reoffending?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figures that I have are a remand population of 12,811, which is 8 per cent more than a year ago. Clearly, however, we are not that far off It is important that we should avoid remanding prisoners in custody when the offences of which they are accused would not merit custodial sentences.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, while I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is multitasked in this House and is well revered for being able to cover just about every subject, I am somewhat disappointed that a Home Office Minister is not here to answer this Question. Are the Government concerned about the Home Office's recent research under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. which shows that recent figures on prison sentences for women suggest that such figures are driven by a severe response to less serious offences? The rate of increase in women being given a custodial sentence at magistrates' courts is now higher than in Crown courts. If the Government are concerned, what do they propose to do about it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise on behalf of the Home Office Ministers. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, who was due to answer this Question, must have been under the impression that Questions would be taken at three o'clock. I apologise on his behalf, because that is clearly not satisfactory.
I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, says about the research on custodial sentences for women. That is one of the issues that will he considered when we debate the Criminal Justice Bill. The Bill provides for a range of tough but flexible options, including intermittent custody, which would be particularly appropriate for women who might otherwise be in full-time custody resulting in huge damage to their families.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one in six people in prison on remand in custody is a very high number? It is sometimes as high as one in five. That means that of just over 72,000 people in prison, more than 12,000 are in custody, either before trial or before sentence. At the time of the goodwill season, the implication for many of the prisons that I have visited is that people must be served their Christmas dinner at about 10.30 a.m., soon after they have finished their breakfast. There is no other way of coping with such large numbers of people in prison. Does the Minister accept that less demand on custody, more use of bail, and less emphasis on imprisoning women and mentally ill offenders would alleviate the present prison crisis to a certain extent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I think that I indicated in my supplementary answer to my noble friend Lord Corbett, the Government sympathise with many of the points expressed by the noble Lord,

779
Lord Dholakia. It must be particularly unpleasant for those who have not been convicted of an offence to suffer Christmas Day in prison. However, remand in custody is used when an informed judgment has been made that there is a danger to the public if remand were to be on bail. That is a matter for the probation service and the police and can be debated when we consider the Criminal Justice Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the numbers on remand are extremely disturbing, given what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in the debate on the gracious Speech about rehabilitation being at the heart of the Government's concerns and strategy? Not only do such large numbers cause the kind of situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has just drawn attention, but they inhibit the Prison Service's work of education and rehabilitation for those who are given custodial sentences for a longer period. It may be comforting for the public to know that many people are being locked up on suspicion of having committed a crime—perhaps a dangerous crime—but, considering the long-term struggle against criminality, we may be doing something in this regard that militates against our long-term aims and those of the Government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the large numbers in prison have caused difficulty for rehabilitation programmes and education programmes in prison. That is not particularly a consequence of the number of remand prisoners; the significant rise in the number of prisoners causes the difficulties to which the right reverend Prelate referred. The Criminal Justice Bill provides alternatives to full-time custody and rationalises the non-custodial sentence regime by providing generic community punishments. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will take an active part in debates on that Bill.

NHS: Professional Staff Exchanges
11.21 a.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have taken a view on the impact on the National Health Service of the proposed directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the aim of improving mobility is one that we fully support. Exchanges of professional staff bring mutual benefits to the NHS and other countries. However, free movement must be balanced by proper safeguards for service quality and public protection, and we shall ensure that this concern is addressed in ongoing negotiations.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I entirely accept what the Minister says as being the position of the Department of Health. However, a number of other government departments do not appear to have got the message. For example, at a recent EU competitiveness council attended by a senior DTI Minister, seven other member
780
states made objections to the directive but the UK did not. Is it not time that the Government got their act together?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord surely knows that the Government speak with one voice on these matters. There has been very constructive discussion between my department and the Department of Trade and Industry. The fact is that UK concerns about the protection of public: and patient safety—I have no disagreement with the noble Lord's concerns on this issue—were discussed and raised at the council meeting to which he referred. The UK representative made substantive points in those areas. Following that, the UK Government are now consulting with the health regulator and other appropriate organisations on some of the concerns raised at that council meeting.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are considerable dangers in the draft order to get rid of the advisory committees on training? Those committees are said to be going. Although they are imperfect, they at least aim to get a minimum standard of training for specialists across Europe. Does he also agree that an effort should be made to incorporate an understanding of English among healthcare workers so that they can at least understand what patients are saying to them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the issue of English, which is essentially concerned with EEA nationals, will be a matter for individual employers. We have made it consistently clear to NHS organisations that individual employers have every right and responsibility to check on the English of prospective applicants.
On the question about the establishment of a single committee to replace the existing advisory structure, I understand my noble friend's concern. Whatever the committee structure that is eventually agreed, it will be important to ensure that it has professional input and that the concerns of the medical profession and other health regulators are fully brought to bear.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Bench!
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, what transitional arrangements are being planned to ensure that professionals from accession countries in an expanded EU have adequate standards of education and training for clinical practice here, and what time-frame is involved?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the accession treaty will allow citizens from new member states full free movement rights from the day of accession, apart from those being exercised for the purposes of work. The EU position allows member states to maintain restrictions on

781
workers from the new member states for up to seven years after accession. That provides enough safeguards in relation to the noble Baroness's question.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what is the position of practitioners from Australia and New Zealand working in this country? I no longer have to declare an interest in this respect. If it so happens that many new people come into the National Health Service and that the Australians—the Antipodeans— look to work within other areas of the Community, will they automatically be entitled to do so or will they have to undertake additional qualifications?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as a cricket fan I have heard rather too much about Australians in the past few weeks.
The noble Baroness is right—there has been a long tradition of Australian health professionals coming to work in this country. They are very welcome indeed, and some of them stay for many years, I am happy to say. My understanding is that currently it is up to member states to recognise or not recognise applicants; under the new directive, if such people have been recognised by, for example, the UK and they practise for three years, they would be recognised in another member state.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that recognition of qualifications raises the question: who confers the right to award qualifications? How is that right conferred in other countries in the EU? In particular, is there any other country in which the power to award a degree can be granted by the sole and unfettered action of the executive?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have comprehensive information about the procedures in every other European country, but my understanding is that in broad principles it is the same as that in the UK; in other words, it is based on a competent body, which may be a government department or, in the case of the medical profession and in relation to medical degrees, a GMC-like body.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister explain how such an unsafe and unsatisfactory directive got through the European Parliament?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the European Parliament still has to consider the directive in detail. There will no doubt be an interesting debate and amendments will be passed. I am sure that much interest will be taken in it. Essentially, it originally sought to bring together and codify a number of existing directives. However, in the process of discussion, further elements were added to it. There are clearly benefits from encouraging free movement across European countries within the EEA. We should encourage that. Equally, I accept that the Government have a duty to ensure that
782
the very real concerns expressed by health regulators are fully discussed and represented within Europe. We will do that.

English Channel: Collisions
11.28 a.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to prevent further collisions in the English Channel.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Marine Coastguard Agency is working very closely with the French authorities to prevent further collisions with the wreck of the MV "Tricolor". In addition to the procedures of the Channel navigation information system, the French police vessel "Glaive" and our HMS "Anglesey" are guarding the wreck, in addition to two salvage boats. Coastguards are broadcasting navigational warnings at 20 minutes to, and 10 minutes past, the hour and this is increased to four an hour when there is bad visibility. Three wreck buoys have been placed to mark the site and a further one, with radar response capability, is planned for Friday.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, so far as concerns this individual collision, that Answer is most satisfactory. As this is the last Question of the year, perhaps I may take the opportunity to wish the noble Lord a very happy Christmas and express the hope that in the New Year he may be required to answer for one or two fewer departments.
On the assumption that the Government are monitoring collisions in the English Channel, what evidence is there to show whether those have increased or decreased and what steps are the Government taking to ensure that, in future, there is compliance with the codes relating to the separation zone?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, do not spoil my fun next year! This is a serious Question and that is why we have a traffic separation scheme in the Channel. After all, it is only 45 miles wide at that point and that is why there are separate east, north and southbound lanes. The Channel navigation scheme, which came into force in 1971, has been successful in avoiding serious damage. We have not had anything like the accident between a tanker and a cargo ship which occurred before the separation scheme came into force and which involved loss of life. I do not have statistics covering the past 30 years, but I can certainly write to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, on that point.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I acknowledge what the noble Lord has just said with regard to separation lanes and their undoubted success in reducing the number of collisions in the Channel. However, does he agree that this latest incident shows up one of the potential weaknesses of the system where there is a crossing point between lanes going north/south and east/west—in fact, a type of maritime Piccadilly

783
Circus? Has he also seen the letter in today's Daily Telegraph from a Trinity House pilot, who acknowledges that, while seafarers today are very much au fait with radar and electronic gismos, they are woefully lacking when it comes to mental arithmetic and interpreting what they see on their screens in relation to what is going on outside the window, if, indeed, they look out of the window?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the accident to which we are referring took place in thick fog and looking out of the window would not have done very much good. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, is right. The accident took place at the crossover point between the north/east lane, which is the responsibility of France, and the south/west lane, which is the responsibility of this country. He is also right that there is a constant exchange of information via telephone, computer transmission link and facsimile. His comments on mental arithmetic raise wider aspects of the training of maritime officers.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent accidents—I refer to the "Prestige" accident and the one in the Channel—raise serious questions not only about the type of ship which is permitted to be used but also about the standard of crewing on many ships, which is appallingly bad? Can he give us any reassurance that we are trying to improve standards?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course, we do not know who was responsible for the accident involving the "Tricolor", and inquiries are still taking place. The "Tricolor" is a Norwegian-registered ship. It was crewed by a Norwegian captain and a Swedish officer and 22 Filippino sailors. Fortunately, they were all saved without injury following the collision. But clearly, even if we consider only the language capability of some of the people crewing ships, questions of communication, as well as questions of training, must arise.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I was the Minister who introduced the idea of traffic separation schemes in the 1970s. Will my noble friend confirm that those schemes seem to have been extremely successful but that there are real problems relating to fog? What lessons is the department inclined to draw from the present situation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the work that he did in setting up the traffic separation scheme. It was the first in the world to be established; it was the first to operate under radar surveillance; and it was the first to be adopted by the International Maritime Organization. As I said in answer to an earlier question, we have avoided serious incidents involving loss of life, such as the one that occurred before the scheme was set up. Therefore, we
784
need to congratulate ourselves on what has happened. As for the issue of fog, we do not yet control the weather. Radar surveillance is the current technology available.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords—
Noble Lords: We have run out of time.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I take this opportunity to apologise unreservedly for failing to turn up in time for my Question. I did so because I was under the mistaken belief—it was entirely my fault— that Questions were being answered at 3 p.m. I apologise unreservedly to the House. I apologise, in particular, to my noble friend Lord McIntosh, who did not expect to have to cover quite so many departments. I understand from everyone to whom I have spoken that he did a much better job than I would ever have done in answering the Question.

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Filkin, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Crime (International Cooperation) Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 15,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 16 to 31,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 32 to 55,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 56 to 90,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clauses 91 to 94.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill NIL
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 20,

Schedule 1,

Clause 21,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 22 to 26,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 27 and 28.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
11.37 a.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 in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [General duties of licensing authorities]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 3, line 16, at end insert "which shall in particular set out the specific reasons which the Secretary of State considers to justify the exclusion of children from free access to licensed premises"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 86, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 112. These amendments relate to unrestricted access by children to all licensed premises. I voiced my concern at Second Reading and spoke in earlier debates about the vagueness of the definition of "harm" in the licensing objectives.
The current provision for children within the licensing system is confused and, we believe, unworkable. The Government's response in this Bill has been to take the radical and, some would say, rash step of allowing children unrestricted access to licensed premises. Allegedly, this is based on a desire to promote a more family-friendly pub environment. In reality, the proposed flexibility will allow children of any age to sit in a licensed premises without adult supervision at any hour of the day. I believe that it has come as quite a shock to many people, both within and beyond your Lordships' House, to know that children can have totally unrestricted and unaccompanied access to licensed premises at any hour of the day.
It is not hard to see the repercussions of this new liberal stance on access for children. Unfortunately, many licensed premises are not the safe, family-friendly pubs we would like them to be. It is not necessary to talk in extremes about 10 year-olds in lap-dancing clubs. A group of 14 year-olds in a rough pub, unsupervised at 10 o'clock on a Friday night, might easily create an undesirable situation.
The Government may argue that the licensed premises holder has a duty to uphold the licensing objective,
"the protection of children from harm".
Will all licensees uphold that scrupulously all the time? How will it be policed?
The framework for guidance admits that,
"it would be appropriate to restrict the access of children where necessary for their protection from harm".
That could be achieved, it says,
"by requiring adult supervision, by restricting the hours during which children (of a certain age) may be present, or by excluding minors completely".
One wonders why the Government omitted from the face of the Bill such important matters as deciding at what time, at what age and from what premises children should be excluded. Will that lead to disputes because of inconsistency between the conditions imposed on premises by different licensing committees?
Our amendment asks for specific reasons laid out in the guidance. At the moment we are told in the framework guidance that examples will be provided about where restrictions might be appropriate. We believe that a handful of examples issued in the guidance on that aspect of the Bill shows an extraordinarily casual approach on the part of the Government. We must have reasons and definitions— not examples. It would be helpful to have clarification that the guidance will not impose more child restrictions than necessary or too few for parents to feel comfortable. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My question on the amendment relates to the fact that at present the licensee determines who should enter licensed premises. I believe that it will be for the licensee to control the actions of children. I doubt that many licensees will allow entry to unaccompanied children late at night. Will the licensee be permitted to include an age restriction, as some pubs do, up to the age of 21 in certain instances? Will that be affected by the legislation?
Viscount Falkland: I agree with my noble friend's remarks, which are addressed specifically, I believe, to licensed premises in the form of pubs. He is right to imply that licensees have long experience of dealing with aspects of under-age drinkers seeking access to pubs. However, the Bill goes wider. It creates licensed premises with all manner of opening hours and all manner of activities, entertainment and so on.
The aim of the Bill appears simple. The noble Baroness has said that it is a simple transfer of powers from the magistrates to local authorities. On the other hand, local authorities will now have to interpret matters to which attention has rightly been drawn—the dangers of over-legislating or under-legislating in regard to young people in a varied number of locations and activities.
The opaqueness of the Bill precludes a sensible debate, particularly as the guidance is in draft form only. We do not know what the Government will recommend to local authorities on this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has been assiduous in teasing out of the Government some clarity—I believe she used that expression with which I agree. I am sure that she would be the first to agree with me that we have not had much clarity so far. This is one example of where we need clarity. Apart from some of the licensing objectives to which I referred in relation

787
to another amendment, the way in which young people will he treated under the new legislation is of great concern to the public.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Avebury: We are confronted with a difficulty faced time and time again on this Bill. We do not have the faintest idea what will be in the guidance. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, pointed out two areas where we need to know the Government's intentions as regards the protection of children from harm. She said that licences could be awarded in such a manner as to restrict the hours when children can he present or they may be awarded to exclude children altogether. Until we see the guidance we have no idea what the powers of local authorities will be in those two areas.
This is of extreme importance when one considers the phenomenon of young people drinking in our town centres and in many provincial cities up and down the United Kingdom. As I said on a previous occasion, it is difficult for licensees to distinguish between young people when those under 18 dress to look like someone over that age.
There are two questions. First, will local authorities be able to impose that kind of restriction at their own discretion, if they know that establishments are likely to attract people under 18? Secondly, how can one enforce such restrictions once the local authorities have decided upon them? We need much more information on those matters before we can allow this part of the Bill to proceed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: There are many grey areas in regard to children drinking alcohol. This appears to be an opportunity to clarify matters. If licensees have to control children, would it help if children had identification cards? Some publicans run voluntary schemes.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We have already referred to this enormously important aspect of the Bill: the protection of children from harm. It is a key element of the Bill. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that at a previous meeting we had a fairly full debate about the issue of identity cards and the limitations of any form of card in solving certain aspects of under-age drinking.
On the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, it would be permissible for a licensee to restrict entry by age 18, 21 or even 25 if he or she wished. That will be his or her decision. As has been reflected in the debate, licensees of establishments where alcohol is sold have considerable discretion because they have a very responsible role in terms of the nature of the establishments they run. Other licensees in other areas have similar responsibilities.
We fully recognise this important aspect of the Bill rightly identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. However, it is important that the Committee should recognise the starting point of discussion on this matter. Under current law, and at the discretion of the individual
788
licensee, it is already open to any child aged 14 or over to enter a public house or night club unsupervised and to remain in a bar area so long as he or she does not consume alcohol. That is the present position.
Children's certificates were introduced by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to permit, with the approval of the licensing justices, the supervised presence of children of any age in bar areas until 9 p.m. Relatively few certificates have ever been issued. By 2001, only 5,000 out of 110,000 licensed premises obtained those certificates.
The Committee will recognise that licensees will not increase their trade or please their patrons by giving unrestricted access to children over the age of 14, still less to children younger than that. At present at the discretion of the licensee unsupervised children of any age may enter and remain in licensed premises so long as they do not enter the bar area. So they can be in dining rooms, family rooms, pub gardens and other places away from the bar area.
In addition, most restaurants serving alcohol do not have a bar at which customers may be served directly. Alcohol is purchased at the table with a meal from a waiter. In those circumstances, children of any age may enter and remain without supervision. That is our current position. It is therefore not a massive step to say, as the Bill provides, that children should normally be given freedom to enter licensed premises at the discretion of the licensee unless there is a reason to exclude them. Society already relies a good deal on the common sense of the licensee, and the figures which I quoted earlier show the nature of that common sense with regard to applications regarding more extended use of the premises by children.
I have no doubt that Amendments Nos. 86 and 112 have at their heart—the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, expressed this graphically in her introduction—the desire to preserve the principles implicit in the Bill; that children should be admitted to licensed premises unless there is a good reason to exclude or to restrict their entry by requiring that they be accompanied by an adult. That is exactly the Government's position. We are at one on that aspect. Therefore, the issue is how to achieve a common objective.
The amendments reflect the concern that nothing in the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State or in the statement of policies made by licensing authorities should undermine that approach. In that respect I am sure that the amendments give voice to the anxieties of many within the industry. Like the industry, we want to see licensed premises develop in a way that will be good for families and good for tourists visiting our country. We have matched that approach with clear rules that prevent consumption of alcohol by children on such premises under any circumstances except one. The exception would allow 16 and 17 year-olds to consume beer, wine or cider with a meal when accompanied by an adult.

789
I give the Committee the assurance that the Secretary of State's guidance will reflect our desire to see much freer access for children to premises. It will also focus on the need—rightly expressed on all sides of the Committee—for vigilance in ensuring that exclusions and restrictions are put in place wherever they are needed. Children of course should not be in premises which provide entertainment of a sexual nature, or in premises where gambling is the main activity; nor should they be in premises where they would be at risk of being drawn into drugs culture.
However, I do not pretend that the guidance can comprehensively cover every eventuality. That is not realistic. That is why local discretion and knowledge will be very important and why this system is based upon local decision-making. The guidance can establish a clear approach to assist the licensing authorities, but at the end of the day the decision will be that of the local licensing authorities. The guidance will also impact on every statement of licensing policy. It will therefore reflect the position that I have described.
The Committee will also note that, under subsection (3) of Clause 5, licensing authorities must consult holders of premises and personal licensees in their areas before making their statements of licensing policy. Licensees will therefore also have a say in what the policy should contain. But, so will the police and, for example, also teachers living locally if they are concerned about this matter.
Amendment No. 419 seeks to restrict the entry of children aged under 14 years to all licensed premises unless supervised by an adult—not any adult, but one aged over 18 years. In other words, at least a 19 year-old. That position would be much more restrictive than existing arrangements.
The term "licensed premises" is defined in Clause 188 of the Bill. It means any premises in respect of which a premises licence issued under Part 3 of the Bill is in force. It therefore potentially includes public houses, night-clubs, theatres, night cafes, cinemas, concert halls, restaurants, shops, stores, supermarkets and hotels. I should be surprised if the noble Earl really wants to deny access to all those places for unsupervised children aged under 14. I presume that the main concern is with places selling alcohol for consumption on those premises.
However, that is not included in the amendment; nor is there a new offence and penalty within the new amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will accept our assurances that the Bill has in place arrangements that can exclude or restrict children's entry whenever it is judged necessary to protect them from harm.
The amendment as drafted is not necessary or desirable. I therefore express the view—
Lord Redesdale: The Minister is speaking to Amendment No. 419. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is not here. I do not believe that the amendment will be moved.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I apologise for that. I had moved on. The absence of Members of the Committee
790
today seems to be a recurring theme. The noble Earl being such an assiduous attender, I presumed that he was here. Presumably we shall debate the issue later.
I therefore rest the case that I have put on Amendments Nos. 86 and 112. We have two clear objectives in the Bill as to children. We want to promote freedom for children to participate generally with their families in circumstances that improve behaviour and bring a more civilised aspect to many of our licensed premises. At the same time, it is absolutely clear that we need to ensure the safety of children. That is built into the principles underlying the Bill. It will be the duty of local licensing authorities to subscribe to those positions.
Noon
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I was quite pleased when he responded to Amendment No. 419 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. When doing so I think the Minister hit the button. The heart of the problem here is lumping in such premises as supermarkets with pubs and clubs. Of course we want to be able to allow children to enter supermarkets under a certain age. But what about pubs and clubs? That is a very different ballgame. So I think this is a great problem.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that publicans cannot have a great deal of experience with regard to how to deal with children. But, as he then quite rightly went on to say, this is a hugely radical change in our licensing laws. I think that it will be quite difficult for publicans to know and to decide, and indeed, in consultation with licensing authorities, what is the best way forward.
I must say that I have yet to come across a publican who wants to have unaccompanied children on his premises. I think that publicans feel that they would be quite an imposition on their other customers. Indeed, most people tend to go to pubs to get away from children.
In some ways, I was beginning to wonder why the Government were making this radical change, because it is a great risk that the Government are taking. In some ways it is laudable. I agree that it is very confusing for tourists to know and to understand our rather peculiar ways, but indeed many of the tourists' countries have extremely peculiar ways. That is all part of the fun of being abroad. But with the best will in the world we should not go too far to suit those visiting our country with regard to the way in which we protect our children from harm.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly referred to an earlier debate in which we said that there was a real problem with under-age drinking. Many children are looking more mature than they really are these days and that, together with the ease of obtaining a fake identity card over the Internet, is putting huge pressure on publicans. If publicans find that under their local policy they can give children unrestricted access, they will feel pressure to do so. If the pub up the road has got it, they will want it too. It will be an enormous burden on local authorities and the industry to manage that well.

791
I find it hard to understand how the provision will be good for families, although I understand the underlying purpose behind what the Government seek to do. We should have liked more clarity in the Bill for the benefit of local authorities, the industry and the police, who are deeply concerned about the provision because, at the end of the day, they will have to police it.
I thank the Minister for his full response, but we do not have clarity. It is a great problem that we are treating clubs in which there could be lap-dancing for 10 year-olds in the same light as supermarkets, which hardly seems sane. However, for the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 3, line 16, at end insert "which shall in particular set out the specific reasons which the Secretary of State considers justify the prevention of any licensing authority from restricting the number of licensed premises, regulating the type of licensed premises. or imposing a generalised closing time in any part of a town centre or other locality within the licensing area"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 87, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 111. The amendments are designed further to probe the Government's view on whether licensing authorities should be able to take a view on whether a saturation point has been reached in the number of licensed premises in a given area. I know that that runs counter to the Government's declared position that there should be a uniform national licensing approach. To suggest otherwise may also arouse concern among some trade interests, but I ask both the Government and the industry whether it serves their interests or that of the integrity and public acceptability of the policy overall not to allow some local safeguards.
There are areas of our towns and cities in which it is commonly felt that there is an over-saturation of licensed premises, as anyone who has lived in or represented such an area will know. People say that there are too many pubs or restaurants in a given area. That is also too easily dismissed as defensive nimbyism—doubtless, sometimes it is, but such comments are made not only by residents but by visitors to this country who find some streets and districts at times overwhelmed by an all too often aggressive and disruptive culture of over-drinking.
Our towns are not only for those who reasonably enjoy a drink, they are also for the security and enjoyment of visitors and those seeking other entertainments. Sometimes, the balance can swing too far. If so, the local authority is best placed to judge that, embodying as it does the representatives of all local people, with all their diverse interests and coming from all parts of the local authority area. That is at least something to consider. I do not want to undercut the principle of greater freedom in licensing and less bureaucracy, although the more that I read the Bill, the more it appears to be a regulating rather than a deregulating Bill. It is a Bill in which all the costs, but none of the freedoms, are transferred from the Chancellor to local authorities. The whip hand on
792
regulation and guidance stays with the Government—that is certainly the case in the delicate matters probed in the amendment.
Is that right? Let us study the guidance. For now, we must rely on the framework. Amendment No. 87 floats the idea that when publishing guidance the Government should set out with absolute clarity in writing why they think that a licensing authority should not have power to restrict the number of licensed premises or control the type of licensed premises in a given area. In some parts of our town centres, if we are to have a living balance, many argue that such a power is essential. The burden of proof to the contrary lies with the Government if they are to deny that limited local power. Guidance—or, as I would prefer, regulation subject to Parliament's approval—gives them that opportunity.
Paragraph 12 of the framework states that licensing authorities should not adopt,
"arbitrary quotas on numbers of licensed premises".
What does "arbitrary" mean? Does it mean that a local authority could adopt a reasoned or well-founded limit on the number of premises in a given area? Is there a chink of light here for those who fear total removal of local discretion? Paragraph 16 of the framework states that licensing authorities may demand stricter conditions for late licences, but does not state that they may limit or regulate the number of places with late licences—it is a frequent cause of disorder when people spill out of nearby clubs and brawls ensue. Will the Minister undertake further to explain the Government's thinking on that to the Committee and to local authorities?
Why is a generalised closing time "inappropriate", as the framework puts it, even in a quiet residential area with no problem of binge drinking or disorder to be combated, as the Government hope, by later hours? Will the Minister reconsider the point about saturation and the lack of power to prevent it? That is one of the main sources of public disquiet about the Bill.
There is no reason why the Government should not simply accept Amendment No. 87, but it might be better if they agreed to review the policy as a whole. We do not want a bureaucratic regime that prevents legitimate and popular enterprise, but we ask for consideration of where and how the right balance can be struck to the benefit of local communities.
Amendment No. 111 writes into the Bill a duty on licensing authorities regularly to review the impact of changes on licensing hours and conditions on the incidence of binge drinking, disorder and anti-social behaviour. The Committee will at once understand why. Paragraph 15 of the framework states dogmatically that longer opening hours are,
"a key mechanism for combating binge drinking, disorder and anti-social behaviour".
The Government state that that is caused by fixed and "artificially early" closing times. We all hope that the Government's analysis is right. Will the Minister set out now, with some care, why she believes that to be so? But what if it is not right? What if a licensing

793
authority finds that, far from reducing binge drinking, disorder and anti-social behaviour in any part of a town centre, the extension of licensing hours exacerbates those problems? Should it not be able to take that into account in revising its policy?
That change in the law, which we all support, will provide late opening on a much wider scale than ever before. We shall experience change on a far wider geographic scale and shall amass far more evidence on behaviour under the new conditions than we have ever had before. With all respect to the Government, it is not sufficient to construct policy for the indefinite future on their perception of what its effect will be. We and the licensing authorities need to be able to study what are the actual effects and to have the freedom to adjust policy accordingly.
Will the Government consider greater flexibility and freedom for local authorities in that important area? There may well be such a thing as saturation. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 166 and 312, which are grouped. They are probing amendments that are an attempt to tease out some of the Government's thinking on the effect of new licences and the issue of saturation. That is covered in the guidance, but the guidance does not provide much elucidation of the Government's thinking on that matter.
We understand that it is envisaged that, in the transitional period, licensed premises will have an almost automatic right to the renewal of their licence. So, the position will not change vastly. I was also interested to find out that there seems to have been, recently, a reduction in the number of licensed premises in central London and some of the stress points. Perhaps, that is because saturation point has been reached in the industry and people may be moving away from going into the centre of town of a night, which is such an expensive activity. However, our amendments would add criteria relating not just to the licensed premises but, to a degree, to the effect on the locality.
It is a matter of debate whether the Bill will change this, but, in the past, late licensing has changed the nature of licensed premises. The purpose of a late licence was to attract a younger clientele. Therefore, the premises had to provide music and dancing and ended up with some noise and disturbance. By opening the option up to a wider range of licensed premises, that issue will be addressed, and there will be places where people who do not want to go to a nightclub and do not want to cause a nuisance at night will be able to go for a drink, after, say, a visit to the theatre. They will have somewhere to go because there will be a broader range of licensable activities.
We do not take the position that we should object to any late licence. Some late licences will meet the needs of the community. However, the fact that there will be an increase in the number of pubs and clubs is causing
794
more concern than any other issue, and there is concern that some of the problems associated with late-night activity will spread.
The Earl of Onslow: I seek some information. Am I right in saying that, if area A already has pubs, clubs and restaurants, the number of such premises is fixed by the planning laws? If someone wants to change the use of a building from a clothes shop to a pub, will the local authority, with its planning hat on, take into account the increase in the number of licensed premises in the surroundings? That is the point that my noble friend Lady Buscombe is addressing.
Do we perceive that there will be an increase in the amount of drink that will be sold, or will it just be spread over a wider timescale? That issue may not relate to this amendment, but it came into my head and seems to me to be important. Do we assume that there will be an increase in the general consumption of alcohol?
I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could help me on the planning issue. It might go a little way towards allaying people's suspicions.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: A councillor from Westminster this morning gave me one answer to the noble Earl. It is possible to have premises on which there is a mixture of eating and drinking during the day but where, at a certain point in the evening, all the tables and chairs are taken away. Thus, the area is, effectively, devoted solely to alcohol consumption, even though entertainment is ostensibly provided, in that people could dance if they wanted to, although that is not the purpose for which they go into the establishment. We have allowed a situation to develop in which people can provide a mixture of activities for people in a pub or club— whatever name it goes under—even though, after a certain point in the evening, it becomes solely devoted to the consumption of alcohol.
My noble friend Lord Redesdale said that there had been a recent reduction in the number of licensed premises in central London. One reason for that may be that the police have been more active in examining the effect of such establishments. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, shakes her head, but the police succeeded in closing a nightclub called Home, which was between Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square. The police had managed to associate the club with the consumption and sale of drugs. The fact that the police have been more vigorous in detecting an association between certain establishments and the prevalence of drugs may be one reason why there was a reduction in central London.
What has happened in the West End Central and Charing Cross police areas is important as a model for what will occur in other parts of the country, when we allow almost anybody who has a clean criminal record to apply to open up late-night drinking establishments. In the context of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, we ought to consider the experience of crime in areas in which the late-night economy has already been under way for many years.

795
I asked the chief inspector with whom I went round the Charing Cross area a couple of Saturdays ago whether such figures were available, and he told me that they were. I have looked for them on the Metropolitan Police website without any success, and I would be grateful if whoever will reply to the amendment could tell us what the experience has been since we have had a late-night culture in Westminster. Have there been more offences of the kind mentioned in the amendment? Has there been binge-drinking, disorder and anti-social behaviour? If so, what are the statistics? I am certain that, if the noble Baroness has the statistics, she will be able to say that there has been a steep rise in the number of offences of violence in those areas and in the other places around the periphery of London—Romford, Ealing and Bexley— to which late-night drinking has spread from the centre, as DAC Trotter mentioned in his presentation to your Lordships. If we find that the police's experience in those areas is that crimes of the kind described in the amendment have increased enormously as a result of the spread of the late-night economy, we ought to take that into account in considering the amendment.
Lord Borrie: I press my noble friend the Minister to respond fully to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, with regard to Amendment No. 111, which is grouped with Amendment No. 87, which she moved. We should keep licensing policy under review, particularly to see whether the theory—if I may put it that way—that freer licensing hours will reduce binge-drinking, disorder and so on is, in fact, the case. There is a great deal of evidence coming out of Scotland that the theory that binge-drinking and so on would be reduced by longer licensing hours has not been borne out. If we go along the lines suggested by the Bill for England and Wales, we will, in due course, need a study to see whether the theory has worked out.
At the moment, the licensing hours finish at eleven o'clock, and the people living near to a public house must, as it were, put up with car doors being banged, loud noise and all the rest of it for 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour. If closing times are much later, residents may suffer not just between 11 and 11.15 p.m., but at various uncertain and indefinite times—for example, midnight, one o'clock, and later—causing much more difficulty for local residents than at present.
It may be that the technical answer to the noble Baroness is that there is no need for Amendment No. 111 because there is provision in the Bill as it stands for licensing policy to be reviewed. However, it would be good for the Minister to reassure us that the issues mentioned in Amendment No. 111 will be covered, and will be expected to be covered, by the regular review under Clause 5.
Lord Tope: We have had some speculation as to why the number of licensed premises in inner London has apparently decreased. I do not know whether it is a reason or a consequence, but I have not the slightest
796
doubt that both the number and, perhaps more particularly, the nature of licensed premises in outer London has increased considerably in recent years. As I have mentioned in previous discussions, I have considerable experience of that in the town centre ward that I represent. In that particular high street we have seen—I believe that it is typical of many high streets in outer London and, indeed, in most metropolitan areas in the country—the nature of licensed premises change. What one might call the traditional pub has gone through a major refurbishment and has turned into significantly larger premises designed, quite reasonably, to attract a younger clientele—they are very successful in doing that—with consequent and inevitable growth in noise, enjoyment, and so forth. That has been one change in the nature of existing licensed premises. The second change has been the conversion of other high street premises, particularly banks—in my ward a cinema turned into a night-club—into licensed premises.
I have considerable sympathy from experience with what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said in moving the amendment. I shall listen with considerable interest to whichever Minister replies. I suspect that we shall be told this is better dealt with through the planning regime and planning laws. I see a nod of affirmation. I agree that that should be the case. I have sat in judgment on innumerable planning applications where we have been told that we cannot consider such matters. In some cases, premises are already licensed, and other licensed premises are in the area which is zoned under the UDP for such entertainment. In those cases, we would not be able to sustain an appeal against a refusal of planning permission.
I hope that the Minister, when replying—if she cannot do so today perhaps she will reply by letter at a later date—will say not just that it should be better dealt with under planning regime, with which I agree, but how. In my experience, that has not preyed possible. There are many high streets in the country that bear witness to that, and many local authorities that regret that their high streets bear witness to that. That is the answer I want to hear.
The Earl of Onslow: I have been given a briefing from Westminster City Council on exactly that point about planning. It might be worth sharing one or two points with the Committee. Night-clubs come under the same D2 planning ratio as a cinema. A cinema can be turned into a night-club without a licence. Bars and pubs use class A3 as restaurants and coffee bars. It appears that the paper has answered the questions that I posed. In addition, it appears that the planning system could be used by changing the categories under planning regulations. If that were to be done, the Government's answer of planning control would have a great deal more validity. I apologise for asking the question previously. I am grateful to my noble friend

797
Lady Buscombe for handing me that piece of paper, which does seem to be authoritative. I thought it would be worthwhile sharing a little of its information with Members of the Committee.
Lord Monson: I warmly support this group of amendments, in particular the last part of Amendment No. 87 which refers to the possibility of imposing a generalised closing time in one or more areas. By decreeing, as they do in the Bill, that everything to do with the sale and consumption of alcohol should be tightly regulated with one solitary exception—namely, closing hours, as the noble Baroness made clear on 17th December at col. 565 of the Official Report—the Government are being wholly inconsistent. If I wanted to go into my local Sainsbury's at 6 p.m. on a Sunday to buy a bottle of their excellent Manzanilla—now there's a plug—I cannot do so. The place will be closed because Sainsbury's, Tesco, Waitrose, Safeway and all department stores, except the tiniest, have to close on or before 6 p.m. on Sunday. What is the reason for that? It is because all governments—this is agreed by both Government and Opposition—believe that residents and amenities should be protected from the noise which is inherent in large stores being open late on what is meant to be a day of rest. It is to protect the general amenities and people in residential areas in particular.
As the Bills stands it will be possible for people to buy alcoholic drinks in clubs and pubs all through Saturday and Sunday nights, and all through every other night as well. That is an anomaly. I should be grateful for an explanation.
Have the Government carried out research into what happens in other countries? They glibly assume that on the Continent everything is open 24 hours a day. As I said at Second Reading, that is absolute nonsense. Have the Government studied the laws which apply in various European countries? We already know that there are tighter restrictions in North America. I guess that in France, Germany, and the Benelux countries—Scandinavia, at any rate—there are quite strict laws about not being open late at night. I do not believe that places that sell alcohol are allowed to be open all night without special permission. It may be different in Mediterranean countries. However, I look forward with interest to the Government's comments.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: I want to speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. In addition, I want to support Amendment No. 111 on which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has just spoken. I want to emphasise the importance of having evidence-based legislation. Has the Minister seen the recent article written by Jim Sheridan, Labour MP for West Renfrewshire? The article refers to research undertaken by the Cranfield University School of Management into what has been occurring in Scotland—namely, the changes that have taken place since the liberalisation in licensing laws—where, contrary to common belief, it appears that drinking and binge drinking is now growing.
798
Research has shown that after midnight public houses generate excessive competitive pressure. There is pricing downwards on the cost of alcohol and, consequently, people are drinking more and more. A whole range of people are complaining now about the consequences. There is more alcohol-related disorder in the streets. Has the Minister had an opportunity to look at the article? Is that type of evidence being taken into account?
12.30 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Members of the Committee have been extremely eloquent on this subject, which was introduced by my noble friend Lady Buscombe. In rising at this stage, I want simply to fill in some of the details about which rhetorical questions have been asked by other noble Lords. I may be able to provide some information. The Westminster figure has already been quoted: 263 premises hold late-night licences. That is a 25 per cent increase since 1995 and, with the change in the licensing hours, the problem will be exacerbated.
The Minister made considerable play with the fall of 11 per cent in inner London licences during the past three years. However, between 1991 and 2001, the figures in Westminster have risen by 33 per cent for bars and pubs. Those are on-licence figures; they take no account of off-licences. Between 1992 and 2002 there has been a 185 per cent increase in entertainment licences in Westminster. I acknowledge that that is in part because the city council has a tradition of not refusing music and dance applications. However, it is an index of how the level of activity has increased throughout that period.
Much hinges on the 3 a.m. figure. There are more people in Leicester Square at three o'clock in the morning than at three o'clock in the afternoon. That has a deleterious effect. Criminals come into the West End stress area—Soho and Covent Garden—at three o'clock in the morning because it is easier to take money from intoxicated members of the public than it is from people who are sober. The crime level rises significantly at that time.
Street crime in Westminster rose by 31.7 per cent between 2001 and 2002. That is partly due to police being moved to anti-terrorism duty after September 11th. But it is still a significant figure. Forty per cent of the street crime in Westminster occurs in the stress area of Covent Garden and Soho. That is 4 per cent of the total area of Westminster. So one can see the astonishingly disproportionate effect of crime in that area.
The University of Westminster and a particular institute within that university published a significant study, which, I am sure, Members of the Committee will have read. It compared locations similar to the West End stress area—Nyhavn in Copenhagen, Temple Bar in Dublin, and Haekescher Marlt, Spandauer Vorstadt and Mitte District in Berlin. All of those areas are much smaller than the West End stress area of Soho and Covent Garden. I have remarked in other places that it would be enormously

799
desirable if some of the pressure could be taken off the West End stress area by opening up similar activities in other parts of London. The South Bank and the City of London in my former constituency are natural places where that might occur.
Against that background of crime in the West End stress area, the policy of the police is to object to the granting of further licences in the designated stress area. They state:
"In certain instances it may be that a street or sector is provided with liquor licence premises to such an extent that local services and/or residents are perceived to be at breaking point or saturated. It is our view that the area referred to as the Soho stress area falls within the specified criteria, therefore no further licence premises in this area can he contemplated".
I give that quotation because the Government take the view that the cumulative issue and that of saturation are not for this Bill and that they should be dealt with under planning. If the Minister comes back again and quotes the planning instance, I am inclined to follow my noble friend Lord Onslow in quoting the specific experience of Westminster in using planning for the purposes which the Minister is contemplating.
DAC Andrew Trotter told the Greater London Authority scrutiny committee of the impact of 24-hour licensing. He was Westminster's borough commander. He explained that if there was a rise in the number of licensed premises, there would be a commensurate rise in disorder and that resources had to be skewed to deal with that. All staggered hours opening does is to spread the troubles right through the night.
I have considerable sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in terms of noise throughout the night. The Minister, responding to previous amendments on amenity areas, said that it was what happened in the pubs that mattered and that what happened outside was not the responsibility of this Bill. The fact remains, as I said in relation to that amendment, that the Noise Abatement Society states that 80 per cent of the noise occurs as people enter a pub and leave it. I do not believe that the Government can merely wash their hands of the consequences of spreading the noise throughout the night. I speak as one who once had a flat above the south-west district sorting office. Alarms went off all night and four-letter words floated up. The one thing that, as a resident, you could predict was that there would be no logic to the moments when your sleep would be disturbed. That is the factor which the Minister in her earlier response took insufficient notice of.
Furthermore, in the context of Westminster, an enormous number of people come in during the clay and are therefore not best pleased if the city shows signs of what happened the previous night. The easiest way of reflecting the statistic is to point out that, as the candidate for that constituency, in shaking the hand of someone on the street I had a one in 15 chance of shaking the hand of someone who had the right to vote for me. That indicates the number who come into the area.
800
There is no point in prolonging my speech at this stage. If, however, the Minister comes back with the planning argument, I shall want to speak further on the issue. She has more than enough to answer in terms of what has already been said.
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, indeed, I have more than enough to answer. In response to a previous group of amendments, which I thought focused on issues of saturation, I laid out the Government's policy position in detail. I do not believe that it would be helpful for me to repeat everything I said. I gave examples of how Manchester is dealing successfully with these issues. I also explained at length the way in which the Bill provides for a number of remedies to deal with the problems that concern Members of the Committee. However, I shall do my best to answer some of the questions that have been put.
It is always helpful and important to look at international evidence. Officials visited a number of European countries when they were conducting the review of licensing laws in 1998–99, prior to publication of the White Paper. So did the All Party Parliamentary Beer Group. That may not be a particularly popular group with Members participating in the debate. It produced a report which may be of interest to those who want to know what happens among our European neighbours.
First, late licences are all issued to fixed times. It is usually 2 a.m. but 3 a.m. in the West End of London. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. is therefore a little spurious. The problems relate to the fixed nature of the times resulting in everyone hitting the street at the same time. It is already possible to apply for, and receive, a late alcohol licence.
The Government's position is that fixed closing times are not only the cause of disorder; there is also considerable noise disturbance when large numbers of people leave premises at the same time. I know that I have already expressed that view. I apologise for repeating it, but it is important to the debate. The purpose of having later licences but not having them at fixed times is to allow a slower and more orderly—and, therefore, we hope, quieter—dispersal of people. But if problems arise, licences can be reviewed under the legislation. There is nothing to prevent that happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about antisocial behaviour and alcohol statistics. The statistics on alcohol-related crime are freely available. They show that arrests from drunkenness fell from 54,475 in 1997 to 45,234 in 2000, which is the latest year for which we have these statistics. We need to be sensible in looking at the evidence. Although, obviously, there are far too many arrests for drunkenness, the statistics show that the situation is not getting worse. It is important to note that.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I did not explain myself properly. I asked the Minister for the statistics for violent crime in the particular areas concerned so that we can compare them with other areas where late night drinking does not take place. For example, she said

801
that in Westminster the drinking establishments are allowed to remain open until 3 a.m. I was asking whether there are statistics comparing violent crime in the Westminster police districts of Charing Cross and West End Central, and how those compared with the averages for the country as a whole. If following the introduction of the late night economy in Westminster there was a huge growth in violent crime, then the two things are obviously connected with one another.
Baroness Blackstone: All my training as a social scientist would lead me to be extremely cautious about making such a deduction. There are many causes of violent crime and you cannot necessarily assume that because there is a late night entertainment culture, and the drinking associated with it, that is the cause of violent crime.
I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's question—I do not have research studies or statistics to hand—but if there are such research studies which suggest the kind of causation suggested by the noble Lord, I shall write and send them to him. But I have not been shown studies of that kind.
Lord Avebury: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but it is for others to look at the figures and to interpret them as they see fit. It is not for the Government to say, "We do not believe that the figures allow these deductions to be drawn". If the figures are available, let the Government produce them and let everyone—whether sociologists or lay people— interpret them as best they can.
Baroness Blackstone: I am perfectly happy for anyone to interpret them as best they can. All I am saying is that I do not have such figures to hand. If they are available I shall be happy to provide them for the noble Lord and to put a copy of the studies and any letter I may send to him in the Library of the House. But I suspect that the nature of causation is infinitely more complex than the noble Lord implies.
The noble Lord asked about the closure of a night club in Leicester Square. There are special powers for the police to ask for the closure of night clubs where there are drug problems—this is the issue to which the noble Lord referred—and they do so by seeking the revocation of the public entertainments licence. This will still be possible under the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill that changes the current situation.
The Earl of Onslow: I thank the Minister for giving way. Would you have to go to the magistrates to get that ban—thereby making it a judicial process and, consequently, a criminal offence—or would you go to the licensing authority? Surely it is difficult to take away someone's livelihood—which this procedure could involve—without some form of due process.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: As far as criminal offences are concerned, such cases would go to the courts. Where there is also a licensing issue, the case would go to the local authority for the revocation of the licence.
As to planning, an issued raised by the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and several other noble Lords, as I said in responding to a previous group of amendments, the Government see the planning law as being of great significance in relation to decisions about how many licensed premises there may be in any one particular area. I said in a previous debate that we need to look more closely at ways in which we can integrate planning law with licensing law.
All premises have to have planning permission before they can become licensed premises, but there is a problem with the question of the change of use of premises, an issue referred to by several noble Lords. The Government readily concede that. We are examining the issue and undertaking consultations. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will report on this in the new year and that report will be available before the Bill leaves this House.
My noble friend Lord Borrie made a good point about the importance of monitoring the impact of this legislation—and, indeed, of any legislation—and I am sure that that will happen. As regards Scotland, however, I should say to my noble friend that he should not anticipate the findings of the Nicholson committee, which is reviewing the licensing laws in Scotland. It will report in the new year but our present understanding is that its findings on hours is very similar to ours at this stage. We shall of course take into account the findings of that inquiry.
I should say to my noble friend Lord Brooke that I have not seen the research to which he refers. I understand that it was paid for by the night club industry, which has a vested interest in preventing the pub industry from breaking into the late night market, and so we must be aware of what perhaps lies behind that particular piece of research.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to the transfer of costs from the Lord Chancellor's Department to local authorities. I remind her that local authorities will recover all costs from the fees that are charged.
As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, towards the end of the debate, the Licensing Bill, with its provisions for flexible conditions, including opening hours, will support the development of entertainment centres away from the West End. This will help with the problem that he perceives in his former constituency of Westminster. I remind him that Westminster Council is responsible for administering the public entertainment licensing system. So the system operating in the West End at present is one to which Westminster Council has been very much a party and for which it has considerable responsibility.
As to the question of current numbers, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and other noble Lords referred to the fact that there has been a reduction in the

803
numbers of on-licensed premises in central London. He is right; they fell by 11 per cent between 1998 and 2001. That is a result of shifts in the market, but the number of premises does not significantly impact on the number of people who are drawn to a vibrant city centre for entertainment purposes, especially on Friday and Saturday nights. Many young people—I have seen them myself—come into London on a Friday night to go to pubs and clubs. There is no easy solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned outer London. He is absolutely right, as he nearly always is, in saying that there has been an increase in the number of licensed premises in outer London. The number rose from approximately 5,700 in 1998 to approximately 6,050 last year. Outer London has one of the lowest densities of licensed premises by head of population in the country. So perhaps it is merely making up for a relatively small number of such premises in the past, compared with the rest of the country.
Lord Tope: Perhaps the Minister will forgive my intervening. She provokes me. I know she is aware that most of outer London is residential and that the licensed premises referred to are not street corner pubs dotted at the end of each street; they are concentrated in town and district centres. So to suggest that there is not a problem because they are nicely and evenly spread around outer London is slightly misleading.
Baroness Blackstone: I did not say that there was never a problem. I was simply agreeing with the noble Lord that the numbers have grown in these areas; but I wanted to set that in context, in terms of the position in the past, when the number of licensed premises was relatively small.
Lord Tope: I do not want to prolong this debate for too long, but the other point that these bald figures do not take into account is that the nature of the licensed premises has changed significantly. That will not affect the number of licences, but it has a considerable effect on the number of people using the licensed premises, which, while the licence has remained the same, have changed from what might be described as the traditional pub into places of entertainment.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall not dispute what I am sure is correct information from the noble Lord.
The concerns of the Committee regarding saturation are clear from our debates both on this and on previous amendments. I repeat what I said when we were last in Committee: the Government are sensitive to those concerns. I am willing to return to the House on this matter on Report. Indeed, I have set out our thinking on where we might be able to come up with some appropriate amendments. We aim to provide a mechanism that is fair to local residents and to legitimate and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, responsible businesses.
804
We have to be fair to the industry. It is not the case that the vast majority of owners or managers of licensed premises are unaware of their responsibilities. We must be fair also to domestic consumers within the UK, and to tourists—many of whom visit our city centres because of their reputation as vibrant, dynamic places where they can have a good time. We must not forget that most of them behave responsibly and show respect for local residents.
That said, as I have acknowledged, there is a problem to be addressed. However, I am not sure that the amendments as tabled would have quite the impact that is intended. For example, imposing a blanket closing time in a particular area might perpetuate the disorder that is associated with artificially early fixed closing times and give rise to a new form of disorder as groups of people migrate between zones. This was one of the principal effects of Edinburgh's zoning policy, and for that reason it was abandoned.
We need to get this matter right, and we shall attempt to do so. I shall return to the House at a later date with amendments. On that basis, I ask that this amendment be withdrawn.
Viscount Falkland: Before the Minister sits down, in the debate between herself, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and my noble friend Lord Avebury she expressed some scepticism about the view that concentrations of people in city centres and alcohol were clearly a prescription for greater violence and crime. She rightly reminded us that in her distinguished career as a social scientist she had not found enough evidence to persuade her that that was necessarily the case.
In the spirit of being helpful, perhaps I may remind the Minister that in the last days of the Conservative Administration, the All-Party Group on Alcohol Misuse, together with Alcohol Concern, which is a government-sponsored body, under the excellent chairmanship of the present Secretary of State for Health, Mr Alan Milburn, there was a study of alcohol and crime, particularly in areas of high-density population, to which verbal and written evidence was given by every single body and individual whose input might be useful. It included prison governors, probation officers, the police and so on. It was a long and detailed report. In its entirety, it lent a great deal of authority and support to the views expressed by Members of Committee.
Needless to say, that report, which some of my colleagues—in a rather optimistic frame of mind— thought would hit the press with some impact, failed to do so. It now rests in the Home Office files gathering dust. It may be helpful to the Minister and her officials if, between now and Report, they could turn up the report. Not much has changed since then; in fact, matters have probably got worse in terms of crime.
We are talking about crimes of violence. We are not talking about pickpockets—who make very bad pickpockets when they are drunk. We are talking about people who attack others, and who go home— this forms an important part of the report—and beat

805
up their wives, common law wives or girlfriends, attack children and so on. The connection between child abuse and child cruelty and alcohol is well known. It is acknowledged by all who have contact with these problems. I should be remiss in my duty as vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on Alcohol Misuse not to draw the Minister's attention to the report.
Baroness Blackstone: That was a very long intervention "before I sat down"! Yes, of course, I absolutely accept what the noble Viscount has said. There is indeed a relationship between alcoholism, drunkenness and violent crime. That, with respect, was not the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He asked whether there was any evidence that there is more violent crime as a result of a concentration of premises serving drink in central London, compared with the position in other parts of the country.
There is more violent crime in central London, for many different and complex reasons. There is no simple answer to that question. But of course I am aware of the association between excessive drinking and violence.
Lord Monson: As we are in Committee, I believe I am entitled to put another question to the Minister. She said that if there were problems of noise and disturbance associated with one particular pub or club, the Bill provides that the licence can be reviewed. One accepts that. But if the review finds against the premises in question, all that can happen under the Bill as it stands is that the licence is withdrawn. That is a fairly draconian, "over the top" punishment. There seems to be no power simply to decree that the premises should close at half past eleven, midnight or whatever, which might solve the problem for residents in the area. We are all trying to suggest that to the Government.
The Minister speaks time and again of licensees' responsibility. Let us suppose that all the licensees in a small town or suburb were happy to maintain their present closing hours because they would not do much business after 11 p.m. Do the Government suggest that those licensees would therefore be irresponsible, antisocial and likely to encourage binge-drinking? It will be interesting to have an answer. I suspect that many licensees will be happy to continue closing at the time they do now.
1 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I understand that the main force of Amendment No. 87 is that a licensing authority can restrict the number of licensed premises, regulate the type of licensed premises or impose a generalised closing time in any part of a town centre or other locality in the licensing area. That will not be possible under this legislation for the reasons I have set out. But any licensing authority will have up its sleeve a flexible range of sanctions: it can modify the conditions to a licence, revoke a licence or suspend it
806
for up to three months. Before doing any of those, it can issue a series of cautions to any licensed premises that is not adhering to its existing conditions, or that is acting irresponsibly. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise to the Minister for speaking again. I said that much hangs on the Government's view that planning will solve the problems that the Licensing Bill creates. It is desirable that we tease out the issue. I acknowledged in my speech Westminster's role in granting entertainment licences. I do not disagree with that.
I inadvertently misled the House in quoting Westminster as having 263 late-night licences. That is the number in the Soho-Covent Garden stress area. There are 583 in the whole of Westminster, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, quoted in an earlier debate.
Today, and in the past, the Minister has made much of the programme that Manchester is running. But noble Lords taking part in these debates have received additional briefing from Manchester City Council. I shall not quote all eight items of supplementary evidence. The council says that there has been a 250 per cent increase over the past 10 years in the number of licensed premises in the city centre, and a similar increase in alcohol-related crime and disorder. The repopulation of the city centre has seen a large increase in complaints from local residents about noise and nuisance, both from within licensed premises and from revellers leaving them. There are also complaints from the universities that Manchester's poor night-time image is adversely affecting enrolment. I do not question anything the Minister said about Manchester, but the story is not as straightforward as she may have suggested.
The Government Front Bench were unable to answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The peak time for offending in the Covent Garden-Soho stress area is 3 a.m. As I said earlier, the attraction of criminals to the area in order to rob people is influenced by the fact that many drunk people will be wandering around. Drunk people are easier to take money from than are sober people. I cannot give figures on violence, but 3 a.m. is the peak time for street crime in Westminster as a whole.
I apologise to the Committee for taking a little time. My point about planning relates to the changes made in 1987. As the Minister will know, bars and clubs fall into the same A3 category as restaurants and coffee bars. It is, therefore, feasible, without further planning application, to change a restaurant or coffee bar into a bar or pub. Similarly, nothing in planning law can prevent a cinema being turned into a night club, which is in category D2, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said.
Planning cannot curtail growth. Planning permission is given for ever, a licence for a much shorter period. The planning inspectorate does not regard crime and disorder as a proper reason for refusing to accept an appeal. I have a long case study that could not make the point more clearly. I shall not read it now; I shall send it to the Minister. Two small restaurants, previously individual establishments

807
closing at around 12.30, were amalgamated. A bar operator knocked the two units into one and opened a bar accommodating 700 people. It applied for a 3 a.m. licence. The police, council and local residents opposed the application before the licensing magistrates. However, in planning law, despite its very different local impact, the operation does not require permission. One of those restaurants has a party wall with a significant block of flats.
The use of the UDP is an alternative way of proceeding. Since all planning decisions must be in line with the UDP, one can change the whole UDP and begin an inquiry. A dynamic night economy needs more flexibility than is provided by the cumbersome process of changing the UDP and a subsequent inquiry. As Wellington said, he beat Napoleon because his harness was made of leather whereas Napoleon's was made of iron. I have a considerable case study that illustrates my point.
The Minister implies that Westminster's decisions on A3 applications, as well as on entertainment licences. had given rise to the problem. The problem is that A3 applications were granted when the council had control of licensing. The power to impose an iron harness in licensing decisions is removed from Westminster City Council. It can do nothing about the fact that, arguably, there are too many licensed premises since it no longer has licensing control.
I have another case history to back my final point. I can send it to the Minister. Breaches of planning law are treated in a much less draconian manner than are breaches of licensing law. In this instance, the case history is of someone who offended in 1998. Four years later, he is still practising, following a series of intervening efforts to reverse the planning breach. Throughout that period, he has been able to continue to trade in alcohol.
I indicated to the Minister during a previous briefing session the history of sex shops in Westminster, particularly Soho. I went to the then Home Secretary, later to become Lord Whitelaw, in around 1981 to say that there were 164 sex establishments in Soho and that there appeared to be no way in which the tide could be reversed. An area of inner London much wider than Soho, which had become attractive, was likely to be polluted by the condition. The Department of the Environment made it perfectly clear that it had no intention of preventing this through planning laws. Home Office officials advised Lord Whitelaw—as he later became—not to move to a licensing system. He accepted my point that the situation would not be reversed without a licensing system. A licensing system was brought in, giving considerable powers to local authorities to decide how many sex establishments they wanted locally, which is what we have been discussing in this debate. Westminster decided to have a maximum of 10 spread throughout the city.
That had a profound effect on the pleasantness of Soho during the 1980s. Many old ladies had previously not been prepared to go down the street past eight sex establishments in order to do their grocery shopping. Once those shops were occupied by butchers, bakers
808
and candlestick makers, they had no hesitation in doing so. It was a complete transformation. The tragedy is that in a sense the Bill will turn back the progress that has been made in Soho by residents and commercial people alike. We already have evidence of what can be achieved. It has attracted an enormous amount of advertising and media industry activity, to the great gain of central London. It would be a great pity if that process were reversed.
Baroness Blackstone: I have already responded to the debate. I recognise that we are in Committee and that the noble Lord is not asking me to respond at length to what he has said. I remind him that the reason for the peak of offending occurring at three o'clock in the morning is that that is when people are thrown out of all the clubs in Soho. The Bill will change that by introducing flexible opening hours. I therefore hope that it will reduce the amount of offending that takes place at that time.
Of course the noble Lord is right that cinemas can become night clubs under change of use laws. That is part of the review of the use class order conducted by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to which I have already referred. As I have already said, the Government will come up with proposals for reform. We do not intend to address the issue in the planning legislation that will come before the House during this Session. Any action on permissions to change from one use to another will be dealt with by an amendment to the relevant statutory instrument. It will therefore probably be possible to introduce it more quickly than the much larger changes to planning law.
I hope that I have dealt with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. I note what he says about Manchester. I am interested in his point about the universities. I suspect that one of the problems that Manchester city centre has to live with is the fact that there are 100,000 students in central Manchester, many of whom turn up on Friday and Saturday nights for a night out and some of them drink too much.
Lord Monson: I know that the noble Baroness has a tremendous amount on her plate with the Bill. I do not want to add to her burdens, but she did not respond to my last question, which was very important. If all licensees in an area decide that they want to go on closing at 11 p.m. as they do now, can she confirm that they will not be accused of frustrating the purposes of the Bill and have their arms twisted to stagger their closing times?
Baroness Blackstone: Of course. This is a deregulatory, liberalising Bill. The whole point is that licensed premises should have the opportunity to decide whether they want to open for longer hours, but if any of them want to close at eleven—or even earlier—of course they can do so.
The Earl of Onslow: Will the noble Baroness address the planning problem in greater detail? As I understand it, she is saying that planning can control congestion and the Government know that the system

809
of classification is wonky. They are going to look at it, but do not know what conclusion they are coming to. That does not seem a very strict element of control.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I have already said that, under existing planning law, local authorities are able to decide whether to grant permission for licensed premises. Local authorities make these decisions all the time. I have also conceded that there is a problem with changing the nature of premises from one kind to another. The Government are aware of that problem, which has been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Brooke. There are problems of super-pubs springing up by the back door as a result. I have said that the Government will come up with proposals in the new year to deal with that. I hope that that answers the noble Earl.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank all those who have taken part in this important debate. I shall attempt to be brief. A number of Members of the Committee have been extremely polite in apologising for returning to their feet. No apology is necessary here. I feel strongly that these are all important points that need to be clarified as early in our scrutiny of the Bill as possible.
Our amendments were drafted with the thoughts and views of the Association of Chief Police Officers in mind. ACPO has said:
"There comes a time when saturation point is reached and the addition of any further licensed premises has the potential to considerably exacerbate existing problems of crime and disorder. We feel that both the police and the local authority, bearing in mind its responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Act, should be able to raise objections based specifically on the additional and cumulative impact of a new premises on the crime and disorder problems in the area".
I shall cover a few areas in response to the Minister and other Members of the Committee. First, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, rightly pointed out that we should be looking for a more evidence-based approach. I asked for that on Second Reading. Most of us are members of the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group. The group went on its travels to find out what happened abroad. We did not hear much about what they found. I have found that in France nothing is open in the afternoon, so somebody is getting a break somewhere. There are also stringent laws in countries such as Germany. Perhaps we and the Government should look at that further before Report. We are grateful that the Minister will be considering this on Report.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his comments. He rightly said that we are dealing with an awful lot of theory. We do not know what will happen in practice. There are opportunities for review under Clause 5, but we are looking for local authorities to focus on the impact of longer opening hours on binge drinking, disorder and anti-social behaviour. The Minister argues that binge drinking is caused partly by everybody coming out at 3 a.m., so it will be far better when we do not have that cut-off time. I find that
810
remarkable. We do not know, but some of us fear that the problems will probably go right through the night. ACPO has said that we may not necessarily find more problems, but they will certainly be spread through the night.
Interestingly, the Minister also said that we should not be concerned about costs, because local authorities will recover all costs from fees charged. That is a wonderful statement for her to have made. I hope that a lot of local authorities will feel extremely assured by that. Costs are not being covered at the moment. This is a new promotion for local authority concerns with regard to fees. Local authorities spend an extraordinary amount of money cleaning up in areas with large concentrations of licensed premises, particularly those with late-night licences. Indeed, there is a huge spend on clean-up and clear-up. Of course, the police will be extending their hours in areas such as Westminster, Soho, and so on. Their peak hours at present run from 6 p.m. to 3 a.m. Presumably, they will now have to be out on the beat right through the night.
We have raised many important issues during today's debate. It was interesting to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, has looked into research, which is a matter that we must take seriously. Research is always funded by someone. We need to consider it objectively. I shall certainly be studying it with care between now and the new year. I shall find what is now available, and also consider the other research when it is published in full in the new year. From research undertaken on the Isle of Man, we understand from the police that the liberalised laws in operation have not necessarily reduced the potential for crime, disorder, and other such problems; it has just spread it over a longer period of time. I believe that there has been some reduction in crime, because the ability of the police to combat crime has been improved by way of CCTV and other mechanisms. So I am not sure, particularly as it is early days, that the Government can rely on saying that liberal licensing laws are the answer to the problem.
Planning is also a most important consideration in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that following a change of culture in our pubs we need to consider planning. But the question is: how? I have with me a briefing note from the Westminster City Council. In referring to it, I should like to make it absolutely clear that right through the debate we want to be fair to industry, as much as to local residents and local authorities. One of my fears for the industry is that local authorities will feel compelled to reject new applications on the basis that they are afraid of saturation and of detrimental effects.
I shall briefly mention two sentences from the note from the City of Westminster, which says that,
"planning cannot contain growth … Many A3 uses have been granted in the past on the basis that their hours could be controlled through licensing".
The latter is an important point to take into account. I worry that new premises applications will encounter difficulties. That is a great shame. The last thing that we want to see is the industry in difficulty when it wants

811
to open new types of premises. The planning process may be the only opportunity for local authorities to ensure I hat they can "contain" any potential problems, hut, in doing so, they may stifle industry.
I note what the Minister said in relation to the fact that the Government are looking at new planning laws. We are grateful for that, but surely this is a case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted. We are being asked to agree to this—
Baroness Blackstone: This Government are trying to resolve some problems that relate to legislation introduced by the noble Baroness's party when in power.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that intervention, but I am not quite sure how that helps us in this case. I am talking about the need for us to understand where we stand in relation to planning. However, we shall not have that information until the Bill has passed through this Chamber and probably another place, which is a great shame. We do not know how such measures will operate at this stage; and, indeed, we shall not know before the Bill leaves this place. On that basis, we should be grateful if the Minster and her officials would think most carefully about mechanisms that could be put in place in this Bill to deal with the question of saturation.
Many other points were raised in today's debate. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville drew our attention to a number of important issues. I believe that his mention of sex shops is an ideal example to illustrate where local input and local power, coupled with responsibility, can make an enormous difference for the benefit of all. For my part, I find that area of London much more attractive. Thanks to local input, it now has a stronger mix of premises that we can all enjoy. There is also the question of noise, which is one of those issues about which we are all particularly concerned in relation to saturation and the cumulative effect.
All the issues raised are important. Yes, the Minster did respond to some of them in a previous debate, but that was all about "public nuisance". We are now talking about too many premises being in one place, which, as I say, could have a negative effect both on local residents and on industry. We want to see a balance here, and we are looking for mechanisms to find it. We hope that the Government will bring forward the latter between now and the Report stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 3, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37)."
The noble Baroness said: On Clause 4, the helpful Explanatory Notes that accompany the Bill say:
"Its proposals are intended to ensure that the provision of additional opportunities for licensable activities are matched by additional measures enabling the police and licensing authorities to act promptly to maintain public order and safety".
I believe that my amendment fulfils that intention.
At Second Reading, I reminded noble Lords of my former work as a magistrate—I am still on the Supplemental List—as chair of a police authority, and as a former member of a local authority. However, it is mainly as a former magistrate that I want to speak to this amendment. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept this declaration of my interests throughout the course of the Bill.
On almost every occasion on which I sat in the adult court, my colleagues and I had to dealt with drunk and disorderly defendants. It was mainly young men, often from the large Army garrison situated nearby, who would come into Richmond specifically to drink themselves senseless. I shall not dwell on their appalling behaviour thereafter, but it frequently drew in the local hooligan element—a recipe for disorder, if not always crime. Residents of the town have complained bitterly about the behaviour of some of these young people, and have refused to go into the town centre at night. The police, who perform a magnificent job in coping with such behaviour. with, I must add, occasional support from the military police, have, nevertheless, a difficult time on Friday and Saturday nights in general.
My amendment is explicitly designed to put on the face of the Bill a requirement that Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will apply in such circumstances. I should, first, remind noble Lords what that Act says:
"Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it shall be the duty of each authority to which this section applies to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area".
I am grateful to the Minister for her letter of reassurance dated 16th December, in which she points out,
"that Local Authorities already are, and will continue to he required to take Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act in to account".
It is important for us to remember that there is a need to tie licensing in with crime and disorder. This is an ideal part of the Bill in which to include it. Although we have already touched on the cumulative impact of a number of licensed premises situated close to one another, this can bring the probability of disorder. As the ACPO briefing suggests:
"The concentration of licensed premises, and the collocation of similar types of venue, within certain areas of a town or city can be associated with crime and disorder. Whilst Government policy is that economic demand may not be a relevant factor upon which to mount an objection, nonetheless, it is the police who must deal with all consequent problems whilst the height of the economic ceiling is determined".
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to the following part of the ACPO briefing when moving Amendment No. 87, but it is worth repeating.
It states:
"There comes a time where saturation point is reached and the addition of any further licensed premises has the potential to considerably exacerbate existing problems of crime and disorder.
We feel that both the police and the local authority, bearing in mind its responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Act, should be able to raise objections based specifically upon the addition and cumulative impact of a new premises on the crime and disorder problems in the area. It should be possible to raise these objections both at the planning stage and, bearing in mind that planing consent is not always necessary, at the time of application for a premises licence".
I believe that it is important that the Government accept this amendment. I beg to move.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I warmly support my noble friend in this amendment. I also have to say that I was truly disappointed by the Minister's reply to the question I asked on the previous amendment—that we do not even know the figures for disorder in particular areas, or how they relate, if at all, to the concentration of licensed premises in those areas. However, in quoting the example of the city council in Manchester, where there has been a similar relationship between the level of crime and disorder and the number of establishments, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, confirmed my subjective impression that there is a relationship between growth in late-night drinking and increased crime and disorder.
I take this opportunity to mention another problem which has not been discussed so far: how local authorities deal with the large number of vehicles coming into these areas when there is nowhere for them to park. In the stressed area of Soho/Covent Garden, late-night car removal vehicles go round picking up and removing illegally parked cars. A large number of traffic attendants are employed by private companies on behalf of the London Borough of Westminster to deal with infringements. Although not a serious crime, parking illegally is an offence which can result in quite severe penalties in terms of the cost associated with recovering removed vehicles.
There is another aspect, however, which I find extremely alarming and unpleasant—the racial attacks on parking attendants which occur late at night and certainly not simply at 3 a.m., although they may peak as people leave clubs and pubs seeking to recover their vehicles. One might ask as an aside how much effort the police can put into ensuring that people do not get into vehicles when they have had too much to drink in these establishments. The police told me, not in relation to that particular offence but in general, that they probably arrest no more than one in 10 of those committing offences in the late-night economy. If they arrested more, they would completely clog up the facilities at the police station and, the following morning, in the magistrates' court.
I hope that in obtaining the figures which she has promised to give to the House, which I am surprised we have not been able to access before this debate, the
814
Minister will pay particular attention to the appalling problem of racial attacks on parking attendants in the late hours.
I am truly surprised to see the noble Baroness giggling as she sits there on the Bench.
Baroness Blackstone: I am just very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for whom I have the greatest respect, is raising issues about racial attacks on parking attendants when they have absolutely nothing to do with Amendment No. 89. We on this side of the House are rather concerned about the very slow progress. We have five days for Committee stage, and I am worried that we will not get through all the work that we have to do. It is very difficult to allocate more days, and the fifth day is already an extra day. If I was giggling, it was simply because I was surprised that the noble Lord should be talking about something that truly has nothing to do with the amendment.
Lord Avebury: It has everything to do with the amendment. The strategy to reduce crime and disorder in an area must include a strategy for dealing with racially motivated crimes, which the Government purport to take very seriously and on which Parliament has imposed additional penalties under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and under various other legislation. As the noble Baroness treats this as lightly and facetiously as she does, I shall not pursue the matter now; I shall find another opportunity to raise it more substantively. However, I utterly refute her allegation that the question of racially motivated assaults on traffic wardens and the strategy for dealing with them has nothing to do with this amendment.
Lord Tope: I feel very slightly intimidated in rising to support Amendment No. 89, but I should like to do so briefly. One of my very much less time-consuming interests, which I have not declared, is as vice-chairman of the community safety panel of the Association of London Government. In that capacity recently, I was reviewing the crime and disorder strategies for all 32 London boroughs. I think that I am right in recalling that every one of them, or certainly the vast majority of them, listed dealing with anti-social behaviour as among its top three priorities.
I expect that, in a minute, the Minister—I always anticipate the Minister's reply—will tell us that the amendment is unnecessary because local authorities already have to take into account the implications for crime and disorder in all that they do, and that is certainly right. However, I agree with my noble friend Lady Harris that it would be appropriate to include in the Bill this simple but very important reminder to the local authority when acting as a licensing authority that it should consider crime and disorder matters, and that we should give local authorities the authority to do so when dealing with applicants for whom that may

815
not always be the highest priority. I am therefore pleased to support this amendment and to do so briefly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has answered the debate; I do not really need to say any more. I can give an absolute assurance that Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act is obligatory on all local authorities for all of their functions; therefore it covers their functions as licensing authorities as well. The only reason why we have to put it in the Bill at all—as we have done, of course, as one of the four licensing objectives—is that it is not absolutely certain that Section 17 of the Act would also apply to any appeal body considering a licensing issue. The inclusion of crime and disorder as one of the four licensing objectives fills that possible gap. There is no other gap. There is a complete obligation on all licensing local authorities to consider Section 17. The amendment is indeed unnecessary.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I am most grateful to the Minister for that response. I shall look very carefully at his comments on the appeal body which will certainly require a little study. Nevertheless, II feel that this is an important provision to include in the Bill and I ask the Government to reconsider doing so. As my noble friend Lord Tope suggested, the provision would remind local authorities of their duties under the Ad. I may wish to return to the issue at a later stage, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 177 [Guidance]:
Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 98, line 10, after "authorities" insert "and the police"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, I shall be mercifully brief. In view of the significant role of the police in enforcing the Bill's provisions, we believe that the guidance should apply also to the police, and that it should be so stated in the Bill.
I speak also to Amendment No. 103 which is consequential on the amendment to subsection (3) of Clause 4 that was spoken to earlier, the effect of which is to make the local licensing statement the only policy statement taken into account by the local licensing authority in exercising its licensing functions. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for the concise manner in which she spoke to the amendments in the group we are discussing.
I recognise the concerns about the guidance, but we have already discussed that in some detail. The framework guidance has been made available. I have
816
put on record that consultation on the detail of the guidance is under way and I have explained that we shall bring the draft guidance forward at some point during the Bill's stages in this House.
I have explained when speaking to previous amendments related to these, as has my noble friend Lord McIntosh, that the guidance to licensing authorities is intended as a functional and user friendly best practice guide, highlighting areas the Secretary of State thinks licensing authorities should have regard to in exercising their licensing functions. This would include determining licensing policy and publishing statements of licensing policy. The Government therefore believe that Amendment No 103 is unnecessary.
The licensing policy is certainly important as it will let everyone know how the licensing authority will go about exercising its functions. But it will already have to have regard to the guidance without this amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 91A, which would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police, I should remind the Committee at the outset—I am sure that the noble Baroness, who knows a great deal about these matters, is aware of this—that the police are operationally independent. This is an important constitutional position that the Government wish to preserve. The police are under no obligation to have regard to or take into account guidance of any kind. There would be little point in requiring the Secretary of State to issue guidance to them.
That said, the Government can and often do work with the police and sometimes other stakeholders to produce consensual guidance on the exercise oft heir powers. A good example is the guidance that was published to coincide with the police's new powers, which came into effect in December 2001, to close down licensed premises on the spot. The Government and the police worked together to produce a document that many forces found useful and valuable. I wish to say, though, that the preamble to that guidance made the operational independence of the police absolutely clear.
I again emphasise that the Bill, and the guidance, has been and is being developed in consultation with a whole range of stakeholders, including the police. We expect to work with the police on the operation of the new licensing system, and the guidance issued will be available to them if they wish to follow it. However, it would be wholly inappropriate to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to them. I therefore hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I am most grateful for that response. In the light of the noble Baroness's reassurances and the further guidance that will be issued before the Bill completes its passage through this House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 98, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) Before issuing or revising any guidance the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) all local authorities which are to become, but have not yet become, a licensing authority,

(b) all licensing authorities, and

(c) such other persons as he thinks fit."

The noble Lord said: I hope that I shall speak as concisely as the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond.
In the Bill as drafted the Secretary of State's guidance assumes considerable importance, impinging as it does upon the determination of each individual licence application as well as upon general policy matters. In those circumstances the guidance should be the subject of prior consultation before it is issued, just as a licensing authority rightly must consult widely before determining its policy for each three-year period.
Of course I acknowledge that there is an advisory group comprising representatives of the 25 organisations listed on the front page of the framework for guidance to be issued under Clause 177 and that that list of 25 organisations includes the LGA. But that is a far cry from the local authorities at large, which are being given such important responsibilities under this Bill, being consulted to bring to the department's notice the kind of local circumstances which militate against the doctrine of "one size fits all". I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This amendment is partly unnecessary and partly undesirable. That completes the coverage of the amendment! It is unnecessary in that it refers to the issuing and the revision of the guidance. As regards the issuing of the guidance, assurances have already been given that there will be widespread consultation. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, reminded the Committee, there was already widespread consultation on the preparation of the framework document. We are now working on the draft document itself. We have given undertakings about the availability of the draft guidance. The work will have to be speeded up but, clearly, the draft guidance is a consultative document. Consultation will take place with local authority associations and individual local authorities will be free to make representations. Certainly, we would expect Westminster to make representations about its particular circumstances. Consultation will take place with the police and fire authorities.
The amendment states:
"Before issuing or revising any guidance".
Guidance is supposed to constitute a flexible document. It is supposed to be capable of revision as and when necessary without any unnecessary formality. If we had to consult every single local authority, including those which have not yet become licensing authorities, and
818
other persons, that would simply slow down the process of revision. It would ensure that we did not have an up to date and effective schedule of guidance.
Lord Avebury: The Government have been rather reluctant to meet Councillor Simon Milton who gave the presentation which has been mentioned frequently in the course of our proceedings. I thought that he painted a convincing picture of the problems facing the London Borough of Westminster. Does the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, agree that if Simon Milton, among others, wishes to make representations in the course of the formulation of the guidance, he should be given a proper hearing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: It constitutes an Exocet to have one's amendment described as both unnecessary and undesirable. I remind the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, of the discussion we had last night in the context of Clause 177 in which he gave me an assurance that the wording that we have already accepted—that is, "have regard to" the guidance issued under Clause 177—would apply to the original licensing policy that a local authority set. Although it would be required to have regard to any revised or subsequent guidance that was given, it could rest on its original position if it chose to do so. Given the significance that the noble Lord placed on the revised guidance last night, I felt that the amendment was not wholly unnecessary or undesirable, although it had obviously already been tabled. However, the Minister has given a reassuring response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 177 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Statement of licensing policy]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 3, line 18, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment. I should make it clear that I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 95, 99, 107 and 110. In each of those amendments, my intended wording of "licensing period" has, for some reason, become "licensing policy", which would not add clarity to the Bill. I apologise for that inadvertent error. As those amendments were designed to accompany Amendment No. 100, which is being debated separately, I shall return at the next stage with amendments to insert "licensing period" in place of "three year period".
Why do I intend to do that, and why do I suggest in Amendment No. 93, which is a probing amendment, that the duty of determination of licensing policy every three years might be removed? I am simply asking the Government to justify to the Committee why there should be any prescription from the centre as to the duration of a licensing policy, and why a licensing authority should be asked to publish a licensing statement after very extensive consultation, as required every three years under subsection (5).
Given that subsection (4) allows a licensing authority the power to revise its policy at any time, there seems no reason to impose a further artificial exercise every three years. What if a licensing policy is operating satisfactorily to everyone's content after the end of a three-year period? Is it really essential for an authority in each three-year period to go through the extensive exercise of a new determination?
The Government keep claiming that this is a deregulating measure. Is the proposal not simply a recipe for unnecessary paper shuffling every three years, which will involve much time and many people who might have better things to do? I should like to understand the reasons for what seems to me an unnecessary piece of mechanistic bureaucracy, and wonder whether Ministers would be prepared to think again on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Williamson of Horton: I did not intervene earlier on the amendments relating to saturation" as I felt that the Government Front Bench was already saturated. However, I intervene here on Amendments Nos. 104 and 102, which are in this group, and to speak to the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on the period. I repeat, as we are involved in such a long Committee stage, that I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread, which is a very large company in the leisure business but is not a brewer. It has sold many thousands of its pubs and is interested in the pub restaurant side of the business.
First, Amendment No. 104 relates to saturation. Amendment No. 87 relates to the Secretary of State's guidance and Amendment No. 111 relates specifically to the question of disorder or binge drinking. Amendment No. 104 goes wider, as it relates to the whole policy of a licensing authority. I noted carefully that the Minister said that she would consider again the question of saturation. I understand that, but I should like to exercise a note of caution.
In the earlier part of the debate, we heard much about Westminster and the stress areas in the centre of London. I fully understand the reason for that and appreciate the point—I am not criticising it—but while I was sitting here, my vision stretched further afield into the rest of England, where the situation is not entirely the same. Overall, the consumption of beer and the number of public houses are falling, and there is a huge move to the purchase of alcohol in supermarkets. We should bear in mind, when talking about saturation, that in small country towns and elsewhere there is another element to the question. We should not discourage competition in such areas. It would be extremely unsatisfactory if we created a situation whereby the existing pubs defended themselves against the arrival of newcomers on the basis that there would be saturation. If local authorities had to follow Amendment No. 104, that would be an overriding point in relation to their licensing policy.
We need to be a little careful in drawing too widely and encouraging too much the potential noncompetitive effect on many parts of the United
820
Kingdom of applying a saturation clause. I do not refer to Westminster, or elsewhere—that is not my point. I am referring to a situation that will certainly arise in many smaller towns, where there will be a defensive attitude on the part of existing operators if someone else wants to come in. That would not be good for the town or village, or for potential consumers. I invite the Government 'to bear that point in mind when they reflect on the question of saturation.
My second point relates to Amendment No. 102. There is much to be said for it, but we need to be careful how we define,
"different types of licensable activities".
That could be interpreted differently by various licensing authorities and give rise to some difficulty in some parts of the country.
Finally, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that a three-year period is too short. We have a great tendency in this country to dig up everything that we have established in many areas of public life. I would be happy with a longer period, bearing in mind that there is always a possibility of review, and other clauses that are already in the Bill. The provision of a three-year basic fixed period is probably too short.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I intervene briefly. Since I shall speak to the next group of amendments on the period for review, I shall not address that question now. However, I should like to address Amendment No. 104 and the issue of saturation.
Several Members of the Committee have drawn attention to the increase in the number of high street and town centre licensed premises, which has led to undesirable social consequences. I understand that but, from a practical point of view, an economic readjustment may need to take place, in that market forces will drive several of the licensed premises out of business. Already, with the downturn in the economy and the lesser availability of spending money, those licensed premises are feeling the breeze most severely. If one is a reader of the City press, one will see that profit warnings are coming from the "pubcos", which are predominantly the operators of that type of premises. By comparison, the traditional public house with an established and long-lasting client base is doing rather better, whether it serves food as well or merely alcohol.
For those who are concerned about saturation and its undesirable consequences, the market may come to the rescue, and capacity forces will drive a number of the licensed premises out of business during the next year or two.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My name appears below the Liberal Democrat names on Amendments Nos. 96, 97, 102 and 104. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and other Members of the Committee, that I have no intention of speaking further on Amendment No. 104, save to say, which I have not said before, that there is a degree of irony in the Deputy Prime Minister seeking to encourage more

821
people to live in inner-city areas if the Licensing Bill runs a risk of making matters worse for those who live there.
Amendments Nos. 96, 97 and 102, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, also referred, are probing to determine whether a licensing authority will be allowed to apply different policies to different areas and different types of licensing activity. Much of the debate has indicated why such flexibility would be desirable
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for explaining how gremlins crept into some of the amendments. I sympathise, as I have had the same experience, and I am grateful for her explanation.
I begin with the three year period; my comments will also apply to the next group of amendments. We set a three-year period for good precedented reasons. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 already imposes a requirement on local authorities to set out their crime prevention strategy on a three-yearly basis. That seems to work pretty well—there have been no difficulties with it. In particular, there are advantages in co-ordinating the two approaches. In view of the relationship between crime and disorder issues that are recognised in the licensing objectives, it would be sensible for local authorities to time their review of licensing policies with their obligations under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That is why we set the three-year period.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked about what would happen if everything is all right after three years. How would the local licensing authority know that everything was all right unless it consulted local people? The opportunity provided by a review requires local authorities to consult local people and other interested persons. It is a protection. If the response is that everything is all right, the review will be a relatively straightforward procedure.
Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 would allow a local authority to have different licensing policies relating to different types of premises. That appears to raise all sorts of difficulties. What if one had different types of premises defined in different ways under different licensing authority areas? How will applicants for licences know what the criteria are and for which type of premises they should apply for a licence? Of course there are concerns about the different degrees of nuisance that can arise from different types of premises; we have been discussing that for the past two and a half hours.
My noble friend Lady Blackstone made it clear that we will revisit the issues raised by saturation. I do not believe that amendments allowing different licensing policies for different types of premises are appropriate or necessary. It is up to a local authority, if it wants to, to impose different conditions for different individual premises or for different types of premises. A premises licence can specify circumstances that are specific to the premises concerned.
822
Amendment No. 104 does not take us any further in our discussion of saturation and the aggregate number of licensed premises in any one area. I suggest that we leave that for the review that the Government have undertaken to make of this issue.
2 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I am grateful for his reference to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the requirement on local authorities to set out their crime and disorder strategy on a three-yearly basis. I appreciate his comments on the advantages of co-ordinating the two approaches. That is one good reason for having a three-year period.
One of our concerns about that period was that a licensing authority may have a view that is different from its stated policy. We therefore thought that it would make more sense to have a review of the licensing policy when there is a new licensing authority, which may have a different policy. We may return to that when we have tabled our amendments correctly.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville raised an important point about urban regeneration. Many of us believe that one of the best ways to contain crime is to increase people's confidence and to encourage them to feel free, able and confident to walk in—to live in—their local urban area. The more that there is life in urban areas on a 24-hourly basis the better and the more secure people will feel. I agree with my noble friend; there is an interesting and stark contrast between the Bill's policies and those set out by the Deputy Prime Minister.
I turn briefly to those amendments to which my name has not been added. Although I heard what the Minister said about different policies for different types of premises, that returns us to the point that I made earlier; that is, that one of our difficulties with the Bill is that we are dealing with different types of premises and applying a uniform set of rules, suggestions and guidance to them. I gave the example of supermarkets. It does not appear to make sense to ally Tesco with a lap-dancing club or the different types of activities that go on within them. I urge the Government to consider that point—it is of great value. It should be considered between now and Report. We on these Benches will certainly consider it further. The more that we consider the Bill, the more I believe that that is one of the fundamental problems. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 3, line 18, leave out "three" and insert "five"
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief because, as the Minister said in response to the previous group of amendments, many of the points that I wanted to raise have already been raised by my noble friend.
We return to the statement of licensing policy. In relation to an earlier amendment we discussed who should draw up licensing policies. I suggested that

823
there was some need for scale and that the dangers of what I called a patchwork quilt were considerable. For example, when local authorities abut one another, there might be one licensing policy on one side of the road and another licensing policy on the other. That did not achieve any resonance in the House—rather the reverse. I believe that Members of the Committee have underestimated the trouble that this could cause.
However, this set of amendments does not concern who should draw up the licensing policies but how often they should be redetermined. I agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench that three years is too often. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, so easily passed off the patchwork-quilt argument leaves me to believe that the Government do not intend to give much local latitude or local freedom. I believe that they will lay down a clear set of guidelines and that the idea of local freedom is a myth or a mirage. If it is not to be a myth or mirage, then the consultation phase will be substantial.
My noble friend Lady Buscombe referred to Clause 5(3) and the list of people who had to be consulted. That list is lengthy. If proper consultation is to be carried out, it will take time. Twelve months could easily elapse in consulting the groups of people listed in those six paragraphs. One consultation will hardly have finished before it is time to start the next.
I am afraid I do not accept the comparison made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with the strategy for crime and disorder. For example, the practical implications of new pubs being opened are considerable. The timescale of acquiring the land, preparing plans for the building and the associated facilities, and obtaining planning permissions could easily to run to 18 months or two years. It may well overrun the end of a three-year period and one might then be operating under a new licensing statement or policy.
Therefore, not only is the provision likely to be extremely bureaucratic; it is likely to inhibit the development of new public houses and licensed premises. In any case—again, as my noble friend pointed out— Clause 4 provides the local authority with opportunities to deal with any important events that emerge in the meantime.
The Minister is always talking about this as a deregulatory measure but she then includes a compulsory three-year review period. I understand the need for a formal review to give members of the general public a formal opportunity to make their views known. But I am convinced that a quinquennial review is quite often enough. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to support the amendment. Simply, I believe that we are looking for a degree of flexibility here.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I also support this idea but not, as this is a probing amendment, on the basis that the cost implications will be extremely high. I know that the Minister will come back and say that it
824
would be advisable to obtain as much local public opinion as possible. However, these reviews will be paid for by local ratepayers and, from my own experience of Camden's review of entertainment licensing policy, I know that it is an extremely expensive affair.
Lord Avebury: The scope for variation of the licensing policy will be very limited, as we can see even from the framework document which has been presented to us. Therefore, I agree with what was said about the lack of a need for complete consultation and revision on a three-yearly basis.
I want to emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, the point made by the Minister during debate on the previous amendment. The need to align the review of the licensing policy with that of the crime and reduction strategy could be taken into account if, at a later sage, the amendment could be varied so as to lay down a period of six years instead of five. Then there would be one review of the licensing policy for every two reviews of the crime reduction strategy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am rather surprised that Members of the Committee should change sides so rapidly. For two-and-a-half hours, we have been hearing how essential it is to consult local people. Yet, when we provide in the Bill for an obligation on licensing authorities to consult local people and to review their licensing policies on a three-yearly basis— not every six months; not every year; and not every two years, but every three years—somehow that becomes too much of a burden.
We want stability in our licensing policies and we know perfectly well that the breweries and other licensees want stability of policy. I suggest that it is not perverse to provide for a systematic revision every three years in line with the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act for crime prevention, which, so far as I know, have caused no trouble at all.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that he hit the nail on the head when he talked in his response about the need for stability. In an industry such as this, I do not believe that stability is provided by the thought that a formal review process will be held every three years. I believe that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of a review every six years is extremely helpful. This is an issue to which we shall need to return but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 95 to 99 not moved.]
2.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 3, line 24, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

"(a) in the case of a council whose members are wholly or partly elected every four years, a period of four years beginning with the date of coming into force of this Act;

(b) in the case of a council whose members are wholly or partly elected every three years, a period of three years beginning with the date of coming into force of this Act."

The noble Baroness said: I tabled this amendment for separate consideration for two reasons. First, unlike what we have discussed so far, it accepts for the purposes of the legislation that the Government are intent on imposing a regulatory central control of the maximum duration of any local licensing policy or licensing statement. We do not believe that that is a good idea, but we accept, for the purposes of this amendment, that that may well be the Government's intention.
The second reason is that I have the, no doubt, forlorn hope that the Minister may accept the amendment. If local authorities are to be the licensing authorities, surely it is sensible that a licensing period should march in step with the political cycle of the relevant authority. In saying that I do not assert that licensing policy should be political—it should not— but where there is a change in the administration of a local authority it is likely that the new authority may want to re-examine the existing policies across the board.
I shall be brief as, in part, the Minister has already responded to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Indeed, I have in large part responded to this matter. The three-yearly review of the crime prevention strategy under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 does not take account of local elections and should not take account of local elections. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, rightly says, this is not a party political matter. Certainly licensing is not a party political matter. There has been no difficulty with the three-yearly review of crime prevention and there is no good reason to suppose that there will be difficulty with the three-yearly review of licensing. I do not know who is behind the amendment, but I understand that it is not supported by the Local Government Association.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. The amendment was put to us by local councillors as a good idea. I shall talk to those local councillors to find out their view of what the Minister has said and of his response to the three-yearly policy for a crime and disorder strategy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 101 to 107 not moved.]
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 3, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I shall take the Government at their word. They want to be deregulatory and wherever possible to cut down "committee-itis" and bureaucracy. The amendment concerns who should be consulted in the statement of licensing policy—not the application of the policy, but the policy itself. The six categories are listed in Clause 5(3). The list is worthy enough, although it contains everyone including—I do not understand why—the fire authority for the area.
The purpose of the policy is to set the framework and to determine the policy with respect to the licensing functions. In my view, there is nothing that the fire service can provide that the police cannot provide just as easily in establishing a framework. Under paragraph (a) the police must be included. That is not to say that fire authorities do not have a role to play in licensing. Clearly, they do. Fire authorities must come into play when one considers licences for individual premises. An individual premises licence requires the approval of the fire authority. Its specialist expertise in public safety in regard to a building is vital. In effect, fire authorities will always have to be involved because without their approval one is unable to obtain a fire certificate and if one does not have a fire certificate one cannot acquire insurance.
I do not seek to downplay the valuable contribution of the fire service or its specialist expertise, but it does not have to be involved in setting the overarching licensing policy, as required under Clause 3(b). We need to minimise the number of people involved so as to minimise costs and the inefficient use of resources. If the Government are serious about deregulation they will find every opportunity to minimise the number of people who are required to be involved at every stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I reassert what I said earlier: the Government wish to be deregulatory, but I think that the noble Lord's amendment goes a step too far.
It is vital that the responsible authorities—the ones that will make the system work—have the opportunity to feed in their expertise when licensing policy statements are being drawn up. That applies to the fire authority as much as to any other body. Indeed, with public safety in mind, one might even say more so.
Public safety is a key licensing objective. Licensing authorities have a duty to promote that in exercising their licensing functions. The fire authority has obvious expertise in that area. It should contribute that expertise. The policy could, after all, have a significant influence on licensing decisions.
No one has disagreed with the policy during the long and extensive consultation in the development of the Bill. I suspect that most ordinary members of the public would not thank us for excluding the fire authority from decisions that could affect their safety on licensed premises.
I do not believe that a requirement to consult the fire authority will impose any serious additional burdens on the licensing authority or on industry, beyond those that are necessary to protect public safety. We made clear in the framework guidance that blanket conditions—for example, capacity limits—are wholly inappropriate. One of the fundamental principles of the new system is that conditions attaching to premises licences will be tailored to the circumstances of the individual premises. I hope that, given what I have been able to say, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury: Before the Minister sits down, can she say what kind of representations the fire authority

827
could make in the formulation of the licensing policy? I am a little mystified as to what its contribution could be. It presumably is not able to propose that there should be a maximum number of establishments in a given area because of the risk that fire vehicles would not be able to access the fires which might occur within the area. For example, if one wanders around the area of Soho at night one will see that already emergency vehicles would find it totally impossible to get access to a serious fire within the area. I worry about that because it seems to me that if the fire authority has not been able to influence the licensing policy in the past, I cannot see how it can do so by making representations at the early stage of the formulation of policy under the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: The clause requires licensing authorities to consult fire authorities in order to take into account what they suggest. The issues that might be raised by a fire authority could, for example, concern where temporary licences are being issued for some big event. Where there was a great deal of music, a good deal of extra lighting rigging might be put in place. There could be some risk of fire if the electrical equipment was in some way inadequate or if a venue was decorated with flammable materials. Those are the kind of issues that a sensible fire authority might want to raise with a licensing authority in developing the licensing statements that any licensing authority would put together.
Lord Avebury: Surely those factors would be taken into consideration in the awards of the individual licences. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, pointed out that the person who wanted to operate those premises with dangerous materials or inadequate lighting or whatever would be refused a fire certificate. Therefore, he would not get insurance. It is not a matter that would be taken into consideration in the formulation of the policy itself.
Baroness Blackstone: I am not sure that we are not dancing on the head of a pin here. The policy ought to set out what issues need to be taken into account when making a licensing decision. This is one example: when issuing a temporary licence for a large event, one needs to take into account some broad policy considerations in making the individual decision.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I began by being concerned about the provision—this is a probing amendment—but I am amazed by the Minister's response. She gave the game away when she said, "It is about licensing decisions". It is not. Of course, when it comes to individual premises or events, the fire authority must be consulted—it must be to obtain insurance. But we are discussing setting the overarching policy. It will be either so broad as to be meaningless or so specific as to include page after page of statements, which will vitiate the whole idea.
The Minister made two other points, which are always adduced. The first is that no serious additional burden is added by involving the fire authority. Every
828
individual addition to bureaucracy can be justified on the grounds that, on its own, it is not a serious additional burden. None of these things is in itself a serious additional burden. The Government have been piling a series of straws on the camel's hack of industry and all parts of our society for the past five years.
Secondly, the Minister says that there have been no complaints about the matter during consultation. Without being too cynical, there is always a culture that says, "We will consult on this and will not complain when you consult on that as long as you do not complain about this". There is a "you scratch my back" attitude.
The Minister's approach is confused. I understand about decisions on individual events and premises. The fire authority has an absolute duty and a vital role to play. But what the Minister has told us about setting the policy is extraordinary. We want to make progress, so I shall not press the amendment further, but I reserve the right to return to the matter later.
Baroness Blackstone: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I am saying that licensing policies should consider public safety. That should be part of the policy. One aspect of public safety is the risk of a serious fire in premises full of young people. Aspects of the policy therefore must engage with the issues surrounding public safety and the danger of fire when large numbers of young people are in such premises. I hope that that helps.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I absolutely understand what the noble Baroness says, and I do not want to plough the ground again, but in that case, there will be no variation across the country. What is unsafe for young people in West Bromwich will be unsafe for young people in Westminster. There is no need for variation, because fire safety—access and exits—is the same throughout the country. It depends on the number involved. There is no difference. The idea that fire authorities must be involved in one area as opposed to another and that special conditions must be imposed is outwith the facts of what we are trying to achieve in a licensing statement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 109 to 113 not moved.]
2.30 p.m
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 3, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) In drawing up, keeping under review or revising a licensing policy, a licensing authority must take into account the need to promote such live music, dancing and theatre as it considers to be for the wider cultural benefit of its local community."
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak briefly. I noted a reference in the earlier framework for guidance to advancing music, dancing and theatre for the wider cultural benefit of the local community. That does not seem to appear in the latest copy of the framework, although I may be incorrect about that.
This is an important issue, and it should be in the Bill. It is appropriate that a licensing authority should take into account the needs of different communities when drawing up its licensing policy. The amendment is concerned with considering the interest in live music, dancing and theatre of many different communities of different cultural backgrounds. It is important that local authorities focus on the different interests that local communities may wish to pursue. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment. One of the problems with public entertainment licences is that only 5 per cent of premises take out a public entertainment licence. In reply to earlier amendments, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that the Bill was a deregulatory Bill. I take those views on board. In addition, however, the noble Lord always added the caveats of safety and public nuisance. It is important that, if those two conditions are met, as many premises as possible should provide music and entertainment if they want to do so.
It is an important issue. Deregulation should promote a flowering of music and live entertainment. The present system has led to a decrease in the number of venues and a decrease in the amount of live entertainment, even though there seems to be canned entertainment in every venue. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, and I also ask the Minister whether the issue will be included in the guidance on the cultural strategies to be drawn up by local authorities.
Baroness Blackstone: We must keep reminding ourselves that this is the Licensing Bill. It is concerned with the four licensing objectives, which we have discussed at some length. However laudable its aims, the amendment falls outside the scope of the Bill.
As Minister for the Arts, I want to encourage local authorities all the time to do everything they can to promote the arts in their community. I take the point of the amendment on board to the extent that I can assure the Committee that the guidance to be issued will make clear that we want to see more live music and more dancing as a result of the reforms, and that unreasonable conditions that might discourage that should not be attached to licences. But the licensing authorities should be focused on the licensing objectives rather than on the promotion of something else, however much we might want to see it. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Baroness can withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I hear what the Minister says about the amendment going beyond the scope of the Bill. However, it reminds us of the many reasons why we had such long debates earlier in Committee about the will and the wish of so many different communities freely to enjoy music, dancing and theatre without the imposition of too many requirements for licences.
That sentiment exists in all parts of the Committee, for which we are grateful. It serves as a good reminder that, although this is the Licensing Bill, it is also a de-regulating Bill. We hope that the Bill will encourage
830
and promote live music, dancing and theatre, albeit through the guidance. On that basis. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 4, line 3, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: We have spent all the debate on the Bill so far hearing the Minister sweeping aside our amendments on the basis that— and I believe that I can quote accurately—
"this is a deregulating Bill and this is a regulating amendment".
I believe that that has been said on a number of occasions by Ministers.
It could be said to be the litany of the Bill, but here is one for the Ministers. We believe that so far this appears to be more of a regulating Bill, and Amendment No. 115 is a deregulating amendment. There is no reason that I can see for the Government to take further unspecified regulating powers to control the preparation of licensing policies. We already have the Bill; we will have the general guidance or regulations under the Bill; we have the requirement to consult under this clause; and we have the requirement to review policy every three years. What more regulations do we need? What is there in the clause that needs to be regulated that the Government do not believe can be satisfactorily covered in the guidance it proposes?
Therefore, will the Minister specify the type of regulations that she has in mind? What will they cover and how onerous will they be? This is an example of entirely otiose zeal to regulate, which completely undermines every comment that the Ministers have made on the Bill so far. I appeal to Ministers to prove the deregulating credentials that they keep claiming, to accept the amendment and to strike out this regulating power. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I support my noble friend. These catch-all clauses are difficult to live with. They provide a means for the Government to block any holes that they feel they may have forgotten. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am astonished. I was glaring at the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, hoping that he would rise to defend the Government. It is clearly in the interests of everyone, including the general public and applicants for licences, that the process covered in subsection (7)—namely, provision for the determination and revision of policies and the preparation and publication of licensing statements— should be consistent across the country.
If I were a large brewer I would be demanding that. I would be expecting it laid down in regulation and not left to licensing policy. The content of the licensing policy is, of course, deregulated in the sense that it is left to the licensing authority. However, the process

831
should be consistent. The process of consultation, publication and how the determination and revision lakes place is a proper matter for regulation.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his robust response. I am reminded that two years ago today—it was last business before Christmas two years ago—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and I spoke at Second Reading of the Regulatory Reform Bill. This is just like old times—here we are again talking about more regulations.
I hear the Minister's comments. I hear his robust response. I am encouraged that the Minister is referring to the need for consistency across the country. My concern is that the clause as it stands is open-ended, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson said. Perhaps clarity would be helpful, although I believe that we have received that in some part from the Minister today. I shall read his comments with care in Hansard. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) The licensing authority shall publish the names of all those consulted, any evidence submitted and the result or the consultation."
The noble Lord said: Before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, leaves the Chamber, perhaps I may say that if his interpretation of what is in subsection (7) is correct, I happily withdraw what I said and accept his strictures.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: All I did was read out what was in subsection (7). I did not interpret it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: With that, I turn to Amendment No. 116. It is intended to help with transparency of the process. It inserts a new subsection at the end of Clause 5, which requires local authorities to give details of those who were consulted, what evidence was submitted and any conclusions that were drawn by the local authority. Under Clause (5)(3), there is a duty to consult widely. However, with the exception of two people—the chief officer of police and the representative of the fire authority—the decision on who should be consulted lies in the hands of the licensing authority. Under paragraph (f), it is,
"such other persons as the licensing authority considers to be representative of businesses and residents in its area".
I understand that it is not possible to be more precise in the Bill than that, but it is possible that particularly under paragraph (f), but perhaps also under paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), the local authority could be partial in its selection of those involved. It could be partial in favour of a relaxed policy or partial in favour or a more restricted one.
It is helpful for the public in each local authority area to be able to discover who has been consulted so that they may draw whatever conclusions they wish. It
832
will be well known who in each area is keen to extend licensing and who is more of the temperance persuasion. It is right that they should be consulted, but there should be a balance in consultation. The way to achieve balance locally is to ensure that it is public knowledge who has been consulted and what evidence they have submitted. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I support the noble Lord's amendment, but perhaps not for the reason which motivated him to table it. Of those who are to he consulted, those set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) are concerned with promoting the culture of drinking and the expansion of drinking establishments. Only under paragraph (f) is it possible for organisations that may have a different point of view to be consulted. They may represent the temperance movement or be residents in the area who are opposed to the extension of such establishments into their immediate districts.
It is important that we know who is to be consulted. We can then examine the balance of representations on such occasions. I fear that under such a list all the weight will be on the side of those who want to promote further expansion of the drinking culture and that little, if any, will be on the side of those who represent an opposite point of view.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment. It is important that, as the Government rightly say, there is transparency. It is important that everyone is aware of who has been consulted and who has given an opinion. There is then more opportunity for people to appreciate that a balanced decision has been made. It is for the benefit of all parties involved.
Baroness Blackstone: I understand and support the intentions behind the amendment. It is vital that the system should be both open and transparent. However, Clause 5(7) already contains the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the determination and revision of licensing policies and the preparation and publication of licensing statements. I hope that I can reassure the Committee that the regulations will set out rules which relate to the openness and transparency of consultation on licensing policy, including the matters which both noble Lords and the noble Baroness have raised.
I believe that those provisions will be sufficient. In the light of that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We come back to this issue again and again. Every time we raise a question about the Bill we are told, "Do not worry about it. It is all in the regulations". When we ask, "Well, what is in the regulations?", we are told "They are not quite ready yet; they will be along shortly". The Government cannot have it both ways. Either they say, "This is an issue that is addressed in regulations, and here are the regulations and you can see them", or they say, "The issue is not addressed in regulations", in

833
which case we are entitled to have more on the face of the Bill. This issue has been raised on many occasions in the proceedings of the Committee by my noble friend on the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and many others. The Minister simply cannot have her cake and eat it too.
I shall not detain the Committee by pressing the amendment, but I reserve the right to come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Licensing committees]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 4, line 7, leave out from "of' to end of line 8 and insert "such members of the authority as the authority shall determine"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 117, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 118.
These amendments relate to the size of licensing committees and seek to provide for greater flexibility and discretion in the deployment of councillors to serve on those committees. As it stands, the Bill imposes a straitjacket on local authorities by providing that all local authorities must have a licensing committee of at least 10 but not more than 15 members of the authority.
Given the widely differing sizes of local authorities, both in terms of population and the number of licensed premises they cover, as well as in the number of members, is it entirely wise to specify such narrow minimum and maximum numbers on the face of the Bill? For example, Ryedale Council, in the parliamentary constituency of my honourable friend John Greenway, has 23 members; Rutland Council, in the parliamentary constituency of my honourable friend Alan Duncan, has 20 members. Both councils will, however, be required to establish licensing committees consisting of at least 10 members, half the size of the authority. Equally, Leeds City Council has 99 members covering the best part of 1 million people, yet its licensing committee will be restricted to a maximum membership of 15 under Clause 6.
I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, could not answer my Written Question asking her to list the number of members of each local authority falling within the definition of a licensing authority because the information was,
"not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost".—[Official Report, 4/12/02; col. WA 118.]
If these figures were not available to the Government, how did Ministers arrive at the figure of a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 15 members? Can the Minister say whether there has been any consultation with local authorities on this point?
Particularly in the transitional period, when local authorities in urban areas such as central London will be dealing with hundreds, if not thousands, of applications for replacement licences and variations of existing licences, it is quite impracticable to place limits on the number of local councillors who can be
834
members of the licensing committee and therefore able to deal with the applications. While it is recognised that a large number of the initial applications could be dealt with under delegated powers by council officers, there will be a huge number of applications for variations which are likely to be opposed by local residents and responsible authorities. If the number of members allowed to sit on the licensing committee is restricted to 15, especially in the transitional period, then huge backlogs of applications are likely to develop, resulting in the deemed refusal of those applications and placing an unwanted and unnecessary burden on the magistrates' courts which would have to deal with appeals arising from the deemed refusals.
Quite apart from the point about the unnecessary burden on the courts, this would defeat the whole object of the Bill, which is to ensure that licensing decisions are taken by the local authority and not by the courts. A council should be able to select as many members as it chooses to sit on its licensing committee so as to be able to cope with the huge burden which will be placed upon it, particularly in urban areas. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support these amendments but I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister. The Bill sets out that there should be at least 10 members of a licensing committee but it does not state how many members have to be present for the licensing committee to be quorate. I am not sure whether that figure will be set by the council. As I read the Bill, all 10 members would have to be present for the committee to be quorate. I may be wrong; I seek elucidation on the point.
It is very important not to limit the number of members to 15. Concern has been expressed by many publicans and by a number of pub chains and breweries about moving licensing from the magistrates to local authorities. The issue is one of speed—namely, the timing in terms of holding meetings. Situations may arise such as the death of a licensee; or a licensee may run off with a barmaid—these things tend to happen at weekends, just to cause maximum problems! In such situations applications under the terms of the Bill for a variation of the premises licence would have to be dealt with as quickly as possible so as to cause the least difficulty and financial distress to the premises involved. Therefore, not limiting the number of members of a committee to 15, especially in larger councils, could provide a degree of flexibility in this matter.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: In support of the amendment, it is worth adding that the experience of obtaining public entertainment licences through the local authority—as happens under present legislation—has not always been satisfactory; the response has not always been as quick and flexible as one would like.
I know that a new system will be set up under the Bill, but the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are very serious. Speed is of the essence. We are talking about only a matter of hours

835
before public houses have to re-open with a new licensee in position. The local authority must be in a position to respond very quickly indeed if significant damage is not to be done both to those who provide the licensed premises and to those who use them.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I reinforce what my noble friend Lady Buscombe said about inner-city councils; and what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said about "quoracy", if such a word exists. Westminster City Council has a committee which has in excess of 15 members at the present time, simply because of the problem of quoracy and finding people to sit on particular issues at particular times of day.
Lord Davies of Oldham: If there is one issue that dogs all of us who are concerned with legislation, it is numbers: the size of committees, and what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred to as "quoracy".
These issues have to be resolved on the basis of substantial consultation. I want to reassure the noble Lord, and the noble Baroness—who raised the issue of whether local authorities have been consulted—that over 173 local authorities responded to the consultation on the White Paper; and during the drafting of the Bill we have stayed in close touch with the main local authority associations.
One recognises the necessity for a committee to be broad enough to be properly representative and at the same time to be able to act with considerable speed: as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, indicated there are anxieties about the problems that occur when a licence needs to considered rapidly, and how adroitly a local authority would respond.
It goes without saying that I have great faith in local authorities, and in the electoral principle generally—I am causing a slight uplifting of eyebrows on the Front Bench opposite, but I am sure that when the noble Baroness hears me complete the sentence and say that I have great faith in democracy, her eyebrows will return to their normal place.
I emphasise the following points. First, it is the case that all members of a licensing committee will have to be present for the committee to be quorate. That is why it cannot be too large. It is also the case that a licensing authority can—as local authorities are adroit at doing— draw up appropriate sub-committees; and in certain emergencies they can even devolve work to officers in order to meet the requirements of particular exigencies.
The powers being vested in local authorities are very important. But local authorities are responsible for many important aspects of our lives, so they have great experience in responding to needs. The consultation extended much wider than local authorities. But, local authorities having been effectively consulted, I think that the range from 10 to 15, which we are adopting, is appropriate. The assurance that local authorities will be able to devolve to sub-committees and officers in particular circumstances gives a necessary flexibility to assuage all anxieties.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I must say immediately that I am not happy
836
with it. I am even more concerned on hearing his response to the sensible question by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on how many members must be present to make a committee quorate. If the whole committee must be present, as a former district councillor I cannot imagine how, if I were a member for Ryedale or Rutland, I could cope with attending potentially many licensing committee sittings.
This inflexible regulation is to go into the Bill, yet so many important provisions will not be included. I do not understand the Government's inflexibility. Councils consulted on the White Paper might have been happy with the idea of that number but I wonder how the question was posed. I suspect that the same councillors who thought that 15—perhaps more than 10, or no more than 15—was about right would give very different answers on seeing the Bill in full now with the implications and the responsibilities that will be placed on them on a potentially daily basis.
We shall have to return to the matter on Report unless the Minister feels able to reconsider it before then. As I said in my opening remarks, it simply will not work, particularly during the transitional period. I can see some councils coming to a standstill, applications being delayed and a backlash against local authorities which will already he struggling to gain the hearts and minds of those who do not believe that the transfer from magistrates to local authorities is a good one. It will become an almost impossible task.
I hear what the Minister says in response to the amendments. I regret the nature and content of that response, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) Each licensing authority shall establish procedures whereby individual members of the authority do not participate in discussions on individual licence decisions concerning then own electoral district."
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the make-up of the licensing committee. It refers to an issue raised in the White Paper that the Government have not seen fit to include in the Bill. It is a probing amendment. I do not suggest that the wording is precisely right but I wish to raise the issue in principle and to hear the Minister's response.
Some licence applications, particularly for premises licences, will be electoral hot potatoes. There is a potential conflict of interests if the councillor for the ward or electoral district in question participates directly in the decision and determination of that licence application. It could be seen as unfair by the applicant or opponents.
The amendment seeks to require councils to establish specific procedures to prevent councillors involved in the ward or electoral district to which a licence application applies from becoming directly involved in its determination. If I were a councillor I

837
would welcome this, because it would give me some shelter. I could then lobby extensively for a particular point of view, but I would not have my finger on the trigger when the gun fired and the result was finally given.
This was a recommendation in the White Paper and I hope the Government will agree to change the wording. I hope the Minister will not tell us not to worry because the issue will be dealt with in the wonderful regulations that we hear about and will see one day. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Lord Monson: If the Government indicate general support for the amendment, which I hope they will not, it will confirm my suspicion—which is also held by a great many others—that the Bill will sacrifice the interests of the great majority in almost every residential district in the country for the sake of the interests of the very small minority who want to drink in the small hours of the morning.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment. The issue of balance has been raised before. There is a balance to be struck between the needs and interests of the local community and those of the publican and others trying to carry on their business. This is a particularly important amendment. If there is a by-election, I can envisage a local campaign group using the issue of whether a particular pub should be regulated as the basis of a political campaign in favour of one candidate or another. It is important that local councillors are protected from acting on these issues. That seems a right and proper motive and I do not think it affects the rights of local democracy. In fact, it would enhance local democracy in the area, but not on such a local level.
Baroness Buscombe: I do not support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Out of the division of one's opposition comes forth helpfulness.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is right that it was suggested at the time of the White Paper that any councillor representing the ward in which premises are the subject of proceedings should not participate in the licensing decision. As he has said, it was felt that there was a possibility of elected members coming under undue pressure. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, also emphasised that.
I join forces with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in suggesting that both noble Lords are wrong in their anxieties. The existing mechanisms and measures that we have established for how local authorities discharge the functions vested in them ensure that where it is improper for an individual to be involved in a licensing decision, self-disqualification will take place.
I recognise that local councillors face these issues of real interests on a number of occasions. As we all know, an enormous spate of anxieties have been
838
expressed by parish councillors about the disclosure of interests. District councillors have vastly greater experience of these matters. One of the joys and achievements of British political life is that local government is largely free of those charges that people are pursuing their self-interests in the decisions of the authority. Such episodes are few and far between across the country. That is why I trust the ability of local authorities to handle these matters.
There are obvious advantages in councillors who have knowledge of their local area participating in licensing decisions. That is the whole philosophy behind the move to local authority control from magistrates, which underpins the Bill. It is suggested in the amendment that this is where the line should be drawn in terms of protection of individual local councillors on issues with regard to their wards. However, I do not accept that argument. I hope, therefore, that, on reconsideration, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am all for local democracy, but I believe that the Bill leaves a slight lacuna in the sense that you can get too close to the decision and become parochial rather than open-minded about the issues being decided. I accept the Minister's point; namely, that local councillors have to face this situation in other areas. I propose to withdraw the amendment at this stage. As I said, it is a probing amendment, and I am by no means convinced that the wording is right. However, I should like to read the Minister's response in Hansard before deciding whether to return to the matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: If I have given the impression of being a mad axeman in seeking to delete Clauses 6, 7, and 9 from the Bill, I must hasten to say that that is not my intention. There is a relationship between the three clauses, which I believe will become apparent. I shall speak briefly on all three clauses.
Clause 6 deals with the requirement to establish a licensing committee, which is a retrograde step in terms of recent local government developments. I have in mind the Local Government Act 2000, whereby legislative obligations to establish particular committees—like, for example, those for education or social services—have been abolished. The internal mechanism for discharging licensing functions should be a matter for the licensing authority to determine.
I also intend to oppose the Question that Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill. Again, this clause appears to have been drafted without any reference to existing statutory provisions relating to the discharge of local authority functions—in this case, I am taking into account the Local Government Act 1972, as well as the Local Government Act 2000—and will, accordingly, create confusion. The clause does not

839
acknowledge that most local authorities now operate with both a leader and a cabinet, so that executive functions, other than licensing functions, will not be discharged by committees.
Finally, Clause 9 has also been drafted without reference to existing legislation and regulations. The latter already make provision about the proceedings of local authorities' committees, public access, publicity, and so on, which is outlined at some length in this clause. In ignoring the Local Government Act 2000, I appreciate that the Government may have felt that they should also even-handedly ignore the Local Government Act 1972.
I declare a mild historic interest in that the first parliamentary achievement of my noble friend Lady Thatcher was a Private Member's Bill to secure public access to local authority committee meetings while in progress. In her memoirs, my noble friend was good enough to pay tribute to the manner in which my late noble kinsman Lord Brooke of Cumnor, as the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, helped her to improve her Bill and thus secure her Act. The public access issue has been around for a long time. I oppose the Question that Clause 6 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Buscombe: Following on from my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 129, 130, 131 to 133, all of which fall within this grouping.
Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 raise the issue of whether or not the broad power given to the Secretary of State in Clause 9(2) to,
"make provision about … the proceedings of licensing committees … public access to the meetings … [public access to] … agendas and records and other information about those meetings",
will allow the Government to provide for greater secrecy rather than greater openness in decision making, as they have done under recent local government legislation. At the moment, licensing hearings before magistrates are public court proceedings. What guarantees will the Minister give that these very broad powers will not be used to provide for decision making behind closed doors?
I should particularly welcome the Minister's comments on paragraph 9 of the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, which states:
"Clause 9 enables regulations (subject to negative procedure) to make provision about proceedings of licensing committees and their sub-committees. Matters such as public access and publicity for local authority committees are already provided for in primary legislation (e.g. Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972). The House may wish to enquire what use might be made of this power as the regulations could not override primary legislation".
Paragraph 31 of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport memorandum submitted to the Committee simply states:
"Given the administrative nature of these matters and the fact that in many respects the proceedings of licensing committees will be determined by local authorities' own standing orders, it appears sensible and appropriate for these matters to be left to secondary legislation, and for the negative resolution procedure to apply".
840
Yet, if the Government think that these are minor "administrative" matters which can be dealt with at a local level, why do we need the very broad powers of the Secretary of State to regulate the conduct of licensing committees?
Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 have been included to ensure that there is no doubt that decisions of the licensing authority can be taken not just by a single officer but by a panel of officers. Currently, some licensing authorities operate arrangements—for example, in licensing street trading and door supervisors—whereby opposed applications are dealt with by panels of officers. That is what currently happens in reality and practice, and there is no reason why that system should not continue.
I move speedily on to Amendment No. 133. Clause 12 makes provision about which licensing authority would be responsible for the granting of a licence if premises straddle the border of two or more licensing authorities. As it stands, the Bill provides that the licensing authority in which a greater part of the premises are situated would be the relevant licensing authority, and if it is impossible to establish which of the licensing authorities is the relevant one under that criterion, then the applicant itself would be able to choose which authority he or she preferred.
That does not reflect current arrangements in respect of public entertainment licensing, a shining example of which operates in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in respect of Earls Court, which straddles its boundary with Hammersmith and Fulham. At present, there is agreement between the two boroughs that Kensington and Chelsea deals with public entertainment licensing at Earls Court. The amendment would enable similar sensible and practical arrangements between councils to continue.
Lord Monson: I strongly support Amendments Nos. 129 and 130. I think that these amendments are absolutely vital.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I shall, if I may, wait to address the fundamental issue of the value of Clauses 6, 7 and 9 in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. In the hope that the clauses will survive, and that the amendments are therefore relevant, I shall first seek to reassure as best I can the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on the points she raised.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, knows, the memorandum was prepared for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It explains that, as she accurately quoted, given the administrative nature of these matters and the fact that in many respects the proceedings of licensing committees will be determined by local authorities' own standing orders, it appears sensible and appropriate for these matters to be left to secondary legislation, and for the negative resolution procedure to apply. That was the Government's case. What the noble Baroness left out was the crucial fact that the committee found those arrangements acceptable.

841
The regulations may make detailed provision for public access to meetings and to records from the meetings. Occasionally, it may be inappropriate for the public to have access to meetings given that it could inhibit free and open discussion. The inclusion of this measure in the Bill gives important flexibility in the holding of meetings of the licensing committees which I hope will benefit local authorities. I therefore believe that we meet the requirements. Moreover, the committee has accepted that our proposal adequately addresses the issue.
On the issue that the noble Baroness—
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I hope that I may intervene. I made reference to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee suggested that your Lordships might wish to inquire what use might be made of the power as the regulations could not override primary legislation. I seek a response from the noble Lord on that matter.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Of course we recognise that the regulations cannot override the primary legislation. We seek to create within the framework a procedure that fits in with local authority procedures. We have provided a framework that we regard as giving the necessary flexibility and one which local authorities on the whole appear to have accepted. On that basis I seek to sustain the present position.
On Amendments Nos. 131 and 132, I believe that we are of common accord in terms of our general objectives but that there is a very fine point of difference between us. The use of sub-committees and officers will create greater flexibility and the Bill intends the licensing committee to use sub-committees and officers to delegate the day-to-day applications and processes to allow decisions on applications to be made quickly. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill to prevent delegation to panels of officers. That seems like plain common sense. I believe that that was the burden of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. That matter is not constrained by the Bill. Therefore, I believe that we are of one mind on that matter.
I turn to Amendment No. 133, which would allow licensing authorities to decide unanimously the identity of the relevant licensing authority—I do not believe that our point of difference is very great here either—for premises that straddle two or more licensing authority areas.
We have stated that where this is the case either the licensing authority in whose area the greater part of the premises is situated or, if none, the authority that the applicant nominates would be the relevant licensing authority. This puts the burden of the decision on the applicant and results in less paperwork for the licensing authority. I believe therefore that the amendment is unnecessary and would result only in more bureaucracy and paperwork for the licensing authority.
842
I turn to the unseasonable coach and horses which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, seeks to drive through the Bill. At this time of year we normally attribute picturesque characteristics to a coach and horses. We do not view it in terms of an aggressive weapon. However, the noble Lord would like that coach and horses to trample all over the Bill and remove Clauses 6, 7 and 9. Such a course would prevent the establishment and functioning of licensing committees, including delegation to sub-committees and officers. It would place a severe and possibly untenable burden on the licensing authority. I now understand why the word "quoracy" was mentioned with regard to a licensing authority taking certain decisions and not delegating them to a sub-committee or in extremis to an officer. In my view the removal of those clauses would effectively wreck the Bill. It would be totally disproportionate for the whole licensing authority to have to meet to consider every single licence application. It would certainly create logjams in the system and huge pressure on elected members, not to mention the industry. It would also give even more point to the question of where we draw the line on the necessary size of the licensing committee. In circumstances in which the committee included a substantial proportion of the local authority, we would be placing a burden on almost the entire local authority to deal with each licensing application.
That surely cannot be what the noble Lord intends. I hope that he recognises that we have sought to achieve balance on the issue. There are pressures between the proper representation and needs of the community in viewing licensing applications and the needs of licensees to obtain their licences properly and effectively when they have a service they can offer to the community. The pressure at times, in those circumstances, can be great in terms of the necessity for speed.
I give due notice that today's deliberations will shortly come to an end. I hope that we will not conclude on the sour note that the noble Lord would wish to wreck the Bill.
Lord Avebury: I do not want to prolong proceedings but I cannot help drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, twice asked a perfectly reasonable question to which she has not been given a proper answer. She referred to the suggestion by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that we should inquire as to the use that could be made of the power to regulate public access to the licensing committees.
With due respect to the Minister, this is not solely a matter for the local authorities involved. They might have expressed an opinion, but the ultimate responsibility rests on us, as Members of the Committee, and on Members of another place to say whether we agree to the powers for which the Minister asks in the Bill. He has not explained why there is any necessity for powers which, as he acknowledged, cannot contravene the access of the public to committees provided for in the Local Government Act

843
1972 and elsewhere. The noble Baroness asked what the regulations would provide, if not that. It is a simple question to which we have not had an answer.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his intervention. I would like an answer.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I have little to add to the answer I have given. I hoped that I had dealt with each of the amendments in sufficient detail. I am sorry if some Members of the Committee are dissatisfied with the answers, as I should have liked to conclude on a more cheery note. On this occasion, however, I am bound to disappoint them.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I owe an apology to the Committee. I am a member of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. However, I can plead in extenuation that I was not a member of that committee when I tabled the amendments that would strike Clauses 6, 7 and 9, particularly Clause 9, from the Bill. The issues that arose from the report have come up in the course of debate. At a later stage there may be further inquiries as to why the House as a whole thinks it necessary for Clause 9 and its regulations to be included, over and above what the Minister has already said.
In terms of Clauses 6, 7 and 9, I am happy to take my coach and horses away in the most literal sense. During the Christmas season, I shall reflect on what the Minister said about those clauses. I do not intend to divide the Committee.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2002
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Blackstonerose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 17th December be approved [6th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as we complete our final business before the Christmas and New Year recess begins, the order before noble Lords is, appropriately, the Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2002, which has effect in England and Wales. The order amends the Licensing Act 1964, and puts in place a permanent relaxation of licensing hours on each subsequent New Year's Eve. The order extends licensing hours between 11 p.m. on each New Year's Eve until the start of licensing hours on each New Year's Day. That produces a continuous period of
844
potential opening between 11 a.m. on New Year's Eve until either 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. on New Year's Day, depending on which day of the week it falls.
On special occasions such as New Year's Eve, most on-licensed premises normally have to make applications to the magistrates' courts or in London, to the Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis and for the City, for extensions of licensing hours. As differing permissions are given, that produces a wide variation in hours across England and Wales. In addition, as 130,000 on-licensed premises and nonprofit-making members' clubs may be involved, that places a considerable burden on the courts, the police and the hospitality industry. When special exemption orders are granted, public entertainment licences are extended in line with the order made. The cost to the industry can be more than £9 million each year, which is inevitably passed on to the consumer. Although the courts recover their costs through fees, it is a difficult and demanding time.
The order would remove the need to make such applications. Similar one-off orders were made for the eve of the millennium in 1999, for New Year's Eve 2001 and for the Golden Jubilee this year. They have all been successful and greatly appreciated by the industry and the general public.
New Year's Eve last year served as a trial of these hours at an ordinary New Year's Eve. The impact of last year's order was carefully reviewed by the Government in consultation with all police forces, all local authorities, all magistrates' courts and some residents' associations before the latest proposal was taken to public consultation and later brought before Parliament.
Most importantly, the police across the country pointed to the success of last year's order. They found that period to be quieter than an average weekend, and found significant benefits to public order in the avoidance of fixed closing times. The review of that New Year's Eve was published with a consultation document in March this year.
The Government learnt from the experience of New Year's Eve 2001 and the order provides arrangements which were also part of the Golden Jubilee. It is now easier for the police, local residents and local authorities to seek restriction orders on grounds of potential disorder and disturbance. Restriction orders limit the extension of hours for specific premises. However, such orders are rare. Only five were sought in 1999, only two in 2001 and none was sought during the Golden Jubilee. The order also relieves local authorities of their requirement to vary public entertainment licences at these times.
While approving the order, the Regulatory Reform Committee in another place criticised the Government for making it so late, although I am pleased to note that your Lordships' committee did not do so. I can only say that we had given undertakings to both committees that we would review New Year's Eve 2001 before seeking to bring forward a permanent proposal. That meant consulting more than 800 police forces, magistrates' courts, local authorities and

845
residents' associations before we could embark on a public consultation. Only after considering that consultation could we begin the parliamentary proceedings. Indeed, it would have been impossible to complete the order under the terms of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 before New Year's Eve 2002 without the co-operation of the Select Committees in both Houses. I thank them and their officials.
The House's Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended that the order can be approved and expressed the view that it provides adequate safeguards for local residents who live close to licensed premises while lifting burdens from the businesses affected.
Finally, noble Lords will perhaps want to know why a permanent order is necessary in view of the fact that the Licensing Bill is already before your Lordships' House. Obviously, the Bill will make no difference to New Year's Eve 2002. But even if the Bill receives Royal Assent by July 2003, at least one year of transition will follow during which permitted licensing hours would still be in place. Accordingly, the order will apply to New Year's Eve 2003, as well as New Year's Eve 2002. After that, everything depends on your Lordships' consideration of the Bill!
I am completely satisfied that the provisions of the order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 17th December be approved [6th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].— (Baroness Blackstone.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for explaining this order, which, as she said, provides for an extension of licensing hours on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. From her speech and from the notes that have been circulated, it is clear that trials of the proposal were held over the New Year's Eves of 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02, as well as the Golden Jubilee.
As the Minister also said, there appears to have been no increase in disorder—indeed, there has possibly been some decrease. Having read the paperwork, it seems clear that, while some objections were inevitably raised during the consultation phase on extending the order, the overwhelming proportion of the general public—I believe that 90 per cent was the figure given—favoured the automatic extension of licensing hours on this basis in the future.
This is a deregulatory order and, therefore, it instinctively commands our sympathy, particularly when it combines, as I understand it does, the automatic extension of public entertainment licences—subject, obviously, to the local appeal that the noble Baroness mentioned—and the consequent cash savings that will follow.
846
So far, so good. I do not wish to be accused of being unseasonal, but I should like to raise two or three points. The first is a small one concerning the title—the Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order. As I understand it, there is only one special occasion and that is New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. As I understand it, a future jubilee or other event of national celebration will not qualify without other regulations being introduced. This Government are very keen on fancy titles, whether they be in relation to consultation or legislation, which promise more than they intend to deliver. Does the noble Baroness agree that this should properly be called the "Regulatory Reform (New Year Licensing) Order"?
When the Minister comes to reply, can she also say a word about how the order affects off-licences? I understand the impact for on-premises licensing, but what about off- premises licensing, about which one or two questions have been raised?
I want to return to the important question of the timing of the order which—dare I say—the noble Baroness slightly slid by in her introductory remarks. We meet on 19th December and, assuming that the order can take effect tomorrow, we are 12 days away from the occasion for which the regulation is designed. That is hardly a long time for licensees, many of whom are small businessmen, to grasp and implement it, let alone for licensing authorities to do the same.
When I read through the papers, I was absolutely astonished to read the proceedings of the Regulatory Reform Committee in another place. This is clearly the second consecutive year in which this problem has occurred. I quote from paragraph 122 on page 33 of the committee's report:
"We were astonished to find ourselves in the position of having to address precisely the same issues as we were required to address in respect of last year's Special Occasions Order—with the only difference being that the situation was, if anything, worse than it was last year. It is scarcely credible that the Department should have failed to comprehend the consequences of its failure to lay the proposal before Parliament in good time. Yet there was barely any indication, when the proposal was eventually laid before Parliament, that the Department recognised either that there would be serious difficulty in ensuring that the proposed order could pass through the necessary Parliamentary stages in time for implementation this year, or that special measures might again be necessary to ensure that the system of restriction orders could work effectively this year".
The subsequent publication gives details of officials earnestly wriggling to get themselves and their Ministers off the hook. The noble Baroness gave a wonderful wriggle as she introduced the order. We must remember that pre-publicity, described as the answer, is hardly adequate. The truth is that of the 70,000 licensed premises in this country, about half are owner-managed. Such people are entrepreneurs and classic small businessmen. I dare say that they are not much in love with regulation and do not have overmuch time, amidst the pressures of running their businesses, to keep in touch with the finer points of administrative change.
The way in which the order has been handled administratively is a fiasco. I hope that the Minister will be honest enough to admit that when she winds up.

847
I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said about the impact on the order of the Licensing Bill, which we have been discussing. It means that we shall have a limping, half-effective order this year because of the timing, although next year we shall probably have a fully effective order. Thereafter we shall go into the wild blue unknown, depending on what happens with the proceedings on the Licensing Bill.
I look forward to hearing the comments of the noble Baroness. I emphasise that we support the deregulatory aspects of this proposal, although on its administration, as they say in the Eurovision Song Contest, it is awarded "nul point".
Lord Addington: My Lords, I can be a little more enthusiastic than the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I was under the impression that there would be consultation, so he may have been a little unfair. I agree that consultation should have taken place a while ago, but in Parliament I have given up worrying about what should have been done. As long as matters are conducted in time, I usually say that that is good enough.
This is an old friend. One or two years ago I remember saying that this was a good idea. The whole package covers next year as well as this year, which is sensible if the Licensing Bill is not enacted. When I first picked up the documents I assumed that the Licensing Bill would cover next year. This procedure appears to work and appears to cut down on disturbance. I recommend that we get the Licensing Bill in better shape so that we do not have to worry about such a situation again.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not feel particularly strongly about the title of the order. What matters is that it does the job properly. I believe that the reason that it is called the Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2002 is that it is an amending order to last year's order, which was for special occasions because it covered the Golden Jubilee.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked about off-licences. The order does not affect off-licences.
On timing, I accept that the order is late for which I apologise. The process of policy development and the statutory timetable described by the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 normally requires well over a year. On this occasion we have had the added burden of completing a thorough review of New Year's Eve 2001, which meant that the order had to be completed in the year between last New Year's Eve and this New Year's Eve. I hope that that explains to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, why we are in this position. That has never been done before.
I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, and for his welcome of the order. I believe that it has been widely welcomed. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was not able to be a little more welcoming. I do not believe that it is a limping, half-effective order. It was widely anticipated and the licensing trade knew that it was likely to be passed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) (Revocation) Order 2002
3.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are here to consider the proposal to revoke one of the beer orders—the Supply of Beer (Tied Estate)(Revocation) Order. However, I should make clear at the outset that, in addition to the Supply of Beer (Tied Estate)(Revocation) Order, we intend to make a related order to revoke the other remaining beer order—the Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order—which will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. While the parliamentary procedure for each is different, the two orders are linked and my speech will inevitably embrace both.
The central point I want to make straightaway is that the beer orders are simply no longer relevant to today's industry, so we are simply getting rid of unnecessary legislation.
The beer orders were radical and necessary in their time, but that was in 1989 when the landscape in the brewing and pubs industry was completely different. It may be helpful if I explain the history of the beer orders.
As long ago as 1986, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was asked to investigate the possible existence of a monopoly situation in the supply of beer for retail sale on licensed premises in the UK.
As I said, in 1986 the structure of the brewing industry was completely different. At that time the industry was dominated by six major brewers which between them owned three-quarters of all tied public houses. The retail pub chains that populate our high streets these days had not even been thought of in 1986.
The MMC report described the stranglehold of the major breweries over the great majority of pubs in this country. Consumer choice was severely limited and independent producers and wholesalers were denied access to thousands of retail outlets. As a result, both wholesale and retail prices were higher than they needed to be.
The Government's response to the MMC's recommendations was the beer orders. There were two: the Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order 1989 and the Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order 1989. The Government decided to require brewers owning more than 2,000 pubs to release from the tie half the surplus over 2,000, thus creating some 11,000 more free houses. Moreover, all national brewers had to allow their publicans complete freedom to buy non-beer drinks

849
from any source and to sell at least one draught cask-conditioned "guest beer". The tied estate order was amended in 1997 to extend the guest beer provision to include one bottle-conditioned guest beer.
It is useful to say more about the guest beer provision because it is probably the only provision of the beer orders to have become lodged in the beer drinker's consciousness. It is important to consider it in context. It was one element of two statutory instruments whose overall impact was to widen the free trade by greatly increasing the number of retail outlets not tied to any brewer. They reduced the number of pubs controlled by the largest brewers, whether managed or tenanted. In the case of tenanted pubs, the guest beer provision further weakened the tie by empowering a particular category of publican to retail an additional beer from outside sources. In practice, the indirect beneficiaries proved to be the regional brewers and some independents and microbrewers who, for the first time, were able to offer their cask beers for sale within the tied estates of the larger brewers. The potential market for their products was widened considerably.
It is also interesting to note that, beyond the strict, legal provision requiring the large brewers to permit their tied tenants to purchase and sell a guest beer, the wider concept of offering a guest beer has been taken up voluntarily in other parts of the industry, for example, by the regional brewers and the retail pub companies. Since last year's sale of Whitbread's few remaining tied tenanted pubs, no pubs have had formal guest beer rights as defined in the beer orders. All guest beers currently on offer in British pubs are those being offered on a voluntary basis. I suspect that that is the reason for the general concept of guest beers being so firmly entrenched in the beer-drinking public's collective mind.
I return briefly to the opportunities which the guest beer provision of the beer orders offered to independent and microbrewers in 1989. While many independents withdrew from brewing, microbrewers have become more numerous, but, as with small businesses, they have both high start-up and failure rates, and their collective market share has only ever been tiny.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition, Consumers and Markets was therefore pleased to announce on 19th February that the Government are keen to enhance the contribution made by the UK's small brewing industry to the diversity and competitiveness of the beer market. Actions speak louder than words, and my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced in Budget 2002 his intention to introduce reduced rates of duty on beer produced by smaller brewers from June this year. The small breweries relief scheme benefits over 370 breweries that produce around 2 per cent of beer for the UK market. The relief helps small breweries to compete more effectively with the larger breweries, and also benefits the wider economy, particularly in rural areas where many small breweries are located.
The Director-General of Fair Trading's review of the beer orders in 2000 was long overdue in the sense that it had been clear for some time that the market had changed dramatically. There have been considerable structural changes in both the brewing and pub retailing sectors. There have also been a number of significant mergers among brewers. Retail pub chains have developed and now own more than a third of the UK's pubs, offering countervailing buyer power in relation to the large brewers.
The Director-General of Fair Trading found that the declining market for beer in the UK since 1989 had forced the consolidation of both larger brewers and regional and local brewers. Apart from micro-brewing, entry into UK brewing has been limited, and there continue to be significant barriers to entry or expansion.
However, the most significant changes have been to the structure of retail ownership. That has changed dramatically, with the emergence of retail pub chains. At the same time, the retail on-trade market has become significantly more differentiated with pubs increasingly competing alongside clubs, bars and, to some degree, restaurants. Retail competition has been manifest in higher levels of capital expenditure on amenity and greater service provision. At the same time, consumers have a greater choice of different price/amenity combinations with the emergence of low-priced retail pub chains.
Not surprisingly, the Director-General of Fair Trading concluded that the beer orders were complex. He noted that there were many ways to amend them against the background of the need to keep competition healthy in the market. But he decided that the industry in its current shape was not suited to regulation by the beer orders as they stood. He therefore recommended that all provisions of the orders should be revoked except for three provisions of the loan ties order. Those were the provisions dealing with loan tie agreements, the publication of wholesale prices and the refusal to supply beer for resale.
My right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 1st December 2000 that he was minded to accept all the Director-General of Fair Trading's recommendations, except that he also wanted to retain the guest beer provision and the rules preventing brewers from imposing conditions when they sell a pub to stop its being used as a pub in the future.
My right honourable friend made his announcement on the basis that the Director-General of Fair Trading's report noted that some 1,700 Whitbread pubs still had formal guest beer rights under the beer orders and he rightly wished to preserve the consumer choice that such rights bestowed. But soon after his announcement. Whitbread sold those pubs, leaving no pubs with formal guest beer rights. That put a completely different complexion on the matter and it made sense to consider afresh the Director-General of Fair Trading's report.
In the light of the Whitbread development, there is no point in retaining the guest beer provision. More broadly, the problems that the beer orders were introduced to address—the situation in which brewers

851
could prevent proper competition between pubs and restrict consumer choice—no longer exist. That is why we have decided that the beer orders have served their purpose and should be revoked in their entirety.
To conclude, I emphasise that even if competition problems arise following the revocation of the beer orders, the Director-General of Fair Trading now has much stronger powers under the Competition Act 1998 than he had under the Fair Trading Act 1973. He has assured us that he stands ready to use those powers whenever evidence of anti-competitive behaviour comes to light.
The revocation order is a useful and sensible piece of deregulation. I hope that it will command enthusiasm, and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. As this is a separate piece or parliamentary business, I declare my interest as a non-executive director of a regional brewer that operates on a tenanted or managed basis about 1,500 public houses.
As I understand it, and as the Minister explained, this revocation order arises because the original beer orders no longer have any force. They applied to brewers and brewing groups that owned more than 2,000 pubs, but none of them any longer fulfils that condition. The Minister explained the background to the emergence of "pubcos" and the change in the retail trade, which we have been discussing during proceedings on the Licensing Bill.
In debate in Standing Committee in the other place, the Liberal Democrats seemed to get very excited about the impact of this revocation. Whatever the rights and wrongs or strengths and weaknesses of micro-brewers, regional brewers or national brewers, their relative position is not affected by the revocation, as no brewers fall within the provisions. I may be missing something; if I am, the Minister will, no doubt, enlighten me. Against that background, it is a deregulatory measure, and we support any measure of de-regulation.
I shall ask the Minister one question and draw his attention to one lacuna. The question concerns the parallel statutory instrument, which is to be revoked by the negative procedure. It is clear that the whole instrument is going. The Minister said that about three provisions remained and that, after the Whitbread sale, it was to be revoked in its entirety. Am I right in assuming that?
The lacuna relates to the impact of the progressive beer duty, to which the Minister referred, on small, family brewers. It has been brought to my attention that the progressive beer duty applies only to breweries that produce fewer than 30,000 hectolitres a year. That is the size of a micro-brewery. As I understand it, the European legislation permits a maximum of 200,000 hectolitres per annum. That ceiling is applied widely in European Union countries. The limit of 30,000 hectolitres is a
852
significant barrier to growth in the micro-brewery sector. It has been calculated that a micro-brewery producing 30,000 hectolitres would have to produce 45,000 hectolitres —50 per cent more—to achieve the commercial return to compensate for the loss of the duty abatement.
There are, of course, revenue implications. As I understand it, the full cost, if the figure were to be raised to 200,000 hectolitres, would be about £3 million per annum. However, it might be worth the Minister's while to consider it, in the interests of stimulating economic activity and encouraging diversity and consumer choice—I have heard him speak of both from the Dispatch Box many times— especially given the £12 billion annual revenue From the sale of alcoholic drinks.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments. We support the proposal to revoke.
Lord Addington: My Lords, as has been said, some of my colleagues in another place got quite excited about the issue. Basically, they thought that we were getting rid of a system that had worked. I think that that was their attitude to the move. The Minister has made a convincing case that we are dealing with a change in culture, but I still appreciate the view expressed by my honourable friends that the system has worked as a long stop and to stop the problems from recurring. However, I shall not delay the House.
I want to support the Conservative Front Bench in their new-found Euro-enthusiasm with regard to micro-breweries. The suggested approach sounded sensible and, if it is a small loss to the Treasury, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, suggested, our palates might gain from greater diversity in our national alcoholic product. We could look forward to that. It is probably a matter for another day, but the noble Lord made a good point. Other than that, I have no strong objection to the order.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am thankful for the points made.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, is right: the move does not affect anyone. The concern expressed in the other place was that we might go hack to a situation in which a few brewers dominated the market. That is extremely unlikely, but, should it occur, the Director-General of Fair Trading has strong powers under the Competition Act 1998 to take action. The noble Lord is also right to say that all the beer orders will go. The final decision was that we should get rid of them in their entirety on the grounds of de-regulation.
As far as duty relief for small brewers is concerned, a judgment simply has to he made on the level at which it should be put. I believe that the view was taken that if brewers produce 200,000 hectolitres and have a turnover of £25 million they can no longer be said to be small brewers. In these particular circumstances, it is the small brewers that we want to help.

853
As I said, I believe that this is a sensible and useful piece of deregulation. I am pleased that it has the support of the House. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Flexible Working (Procedural Requirements) Regulations 2002
3.55 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillerose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject matter of these regulations will be familiar to those who took part in the debate on the Employment Act earlier this year. I thank those who contributed to that discussion. The approval of the flexible working hours clause provided working parents with children under six, or disabled children under 18, with the right to request flexible working patterns and for their employers to have a duty to consider the request. Since that time, there has been a three-month public consultation on the draft regulations to ensure that the final details we are debating today are a true reflection of the views and concerns of all interested stakeholders.
There are two sets of regulations for this new right: the procedural requirements which outline the procedures which employers must follow are subject to the affirmative procedure and are being debated today. Once these have been approved we shall lay the second set, which are subject to the negative procedure and detail the eligibility criteria, the breaches of procedure and the level of compensation.
I should like to place those new regulations in the context of the other provisions that the Government have recently introduced as part of a package of measures for helping working parents. These include the extension and enhancement of maternity leave and pay, the introduction of paid paternity leave and the introduction of adoption leave and pay which mirrors maternity provisions as far as possible. Regulations on all those measures were debated and approved by the House last month.
Flexible working was highlighted as a key issue in the workplace when the Government consulted on the Green Paper Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice. Both employers and employees wanted flexibility that they could tailor to their circumstances rather than a fixed automatic right for parents to reduce their working hours. This was investigated by the Work and Parents Task Force, whose central objective was to design a legislative approach which built on existing best practice models, and to provide parents with opportunities for flexibility in a way that was both compatible with and beneficial for business. Key to this commitment was a focus on developing a policy designed to be specifically workable for small businesses.
854
We identified parents with children under six and disabled children up to the age of 18 as being the group which faced the most challenges regarding the need to balance work and childcare responsibilities. For them the dissemination of best practice is simply not happening fast enough, which is why the Government are legislating in that area. We are aiming to create a minimum standard across the board and to speed up the process of cultural change in the workplace. However, we recognise that it is not only "natural" parents who face those difficulties. Therefore, those rights will be available to all working parents, including adoptive and foster parents, and their partners.
The regulations set out the detail of the procedure which employees and employers must follow when making and handling a request under the right. They set out the time periods for each stage of the process, allow for mutually agreed time extensions, and an automatic extension of up to 28 days where the employer is absent due to illness or annual leave.
The process is straightforward with both parties having responsibility for ensuring a satisfactory outcome. The employee has the initial responsibility to make their application in writing, specifying how they meet the eligibility criteria and the date from which they would like the new working pattern to start. They must also detail the working pattern that they wish to adopt, stating what effect they think it will have on the employer and how any such effect might be dealt with. The next step is for the employer to arrange a meeting to discuss the request and, if necessary, consider alternatives to the proposed pattern.
The regulations also allow for the employee to he accompanied at the initial meeting, and at any appeal meeting. The companion is defined as,
"a worker employed by the same employer".
That allows for a local trade union representative to be the companion, but not outsiders to the business. This was a key concern of small businesses during the consultation and we believe that this definition is the closest to the recommendation of the taskforce, that the companion be,
"a fellow employee, friend or appropriate recognised trade union representative".
Businesses and unions were unanimous in their concern that "friend" was too vague a term and so that has not been included in the regulations. However, in the interests of reaching a satisfactory outcome and to facilitate productive dialogue, we are encouraging employers through guidance to be as open as possible as to whom they allow as companion. Under Regulation 15, if an employer denies an employee the right to be accompanied, an employment tribunal can award up to two weeks' pay as compensation. This award is separate from the compensation that may be awarded for a breach of the procedure.
Employers can reject an application only on one or more of the eight business grounds specified in the Employment Act. In cases of refusal, the employer must set out his reasons fully in writing to the employee, with an explanation of why the grounds

855
apply in the particular circumstances. Employees have the right to appeal a negative decision and can go to an employment tribunal where the employer has either breached the procedure set out in these regulations or has based the rejection on incorrect facts.
If a case reaches an employment tribunal, employers will need to demonstrate that they have followed the procedure and held a meeting and provided proper written explanation as to the grounds for refusal. The role of the tribunal will be to verify whether the procedure has in fact been followed, and to examine any disputed facts. Tribunals will have the power to send the case back to the employer for reconsideration and to order compensation where appropriate. They will not be able to overturn the business decision.
The level of compensation for a breach of procedure is detailed in the parallel regulations, Flexible Working (Eligibility, Complaints and Remedies) Regulations 2002, which will be laid once these regulations have been approved today. Compensation will be up to a maximum of eight weeks' pay, with a week's pay subject to a cap, currently set at £250. We believe that this level of compensation will provide an incentive for employers to take the request seriously and ensure that it is given reasonable consideration.
It is our aim that most cases where a request is disputed will be solved amicably in the workplace and the procedure looks to facilitate this. Recourse to an employment tribunal is both costly and time consuming, and we hope that this will always be a last resort. In the regulatory impact assessment we estimate that only 1 per cent of all cases will end up at tribunal and that the vast majority of cases will be settled at the initial meeting. As an alternative mechanism to the employment tribunal, we are intending for ACAS to widen its arbitration scheme to cover flexible working and regulations detailing this will be laid once these regulations have been approved.
As I said earlier, these regulations have been designed for small businesses, and the Small Business Council has played a large part in the development process to ensure that their needs and concerns will be met.
I believe that the regulations we are debating recognise that every business and every request will differ. We are not offering a "one size fits all" solution, but through this light-touch legislation, we are aiming to facilitate dialogue in the workplace and build on existing best practice.
Alongside this new right, we will be introducing a package of support to ensure that both employers and parents have a full understanding of the process. A key part of this will be guidance containing a variety of examples of how the right will apply in practice.
We have also considered carefully the costs and benefits to employers of implementing this new right. In the regulatory impact assessment we estimate that this is likely to cost around £296 million a year. This may sound a lot, but spread over the 500,000 requests we expect to be made, this works out at an average of £160 per request. It is likely that many requests will be of minimal or no cost to implement. For instance, a
856
shift of half an hour to an employee's start and finish time each day, to enable him to drop his child off at nursery before coming to work, will probably not cost anything other than the time it takes to read and process the application.
There are many benefits to flexible working. Some are quantifiable: for instance, better staff retention leading to savings on recruitment costs of an estimated £90 million per year; and reduced absenteeism, which costs business around £500 per employee each year. There is also the benefit of reduced sick leave, which in the first quarter of this year cost over 2 million working days each week, equivalent to 2 per cent of the total scheduled working days.
In addition to these benefits, there are others that cannot be measured in the same monetary terms but are nevertheless significant. These include improved employee morale, loyalty and commitment; an increased ability to cope with changing market decisions and to provide better customer service; and improved motivation and productivity.
As an illustration of how simple changes to prescriptive working patterns and the introduction of flexible working practices can have a. huge impact, let me give the example of Rothwell & Sons Limited, a family-owned mushroom-growing business in Lancashire. It was awarded a grant from the DTI's Work-Life Balance Challenge Fund, which gives grants and consultancy advice to businesses wanting to implement flexible working practices. Within six months of receiving this help, it reported a 9 per cent improvement in productivity, a 20 per cent reduction in the cost of overtime, a 44 per cent reduction in staff turnover and a 46 per cent drop in overall absence rates.
To conclude, the regulations we are debating detail the process for making and handling applications to work flexibly. Parallel regulations subject to the negative procedure cover the eligibility criteria, the right to appeal, grounds for complaint and the level of compensation. They will be laid separately.
It is important to see this new right in the broader context of the Government's commitment to provide working parents with more choice and support to balance their work with childcare responsibilities. No one should have to choose between their children and their career. This new legislation endeavours to enable working parents to balance both work and family in a way that benefits business and contributes to the wider economy.
These policies have been developed in close consultation with stakeholders and have received broad support. The regulations are kept as close as possible to the original recommendations of the Working Parents Task Force. I believe that they are both right in principle and workable for all businesses, however small. I commend the regulations to the House.

857
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for taking us so clearly through this complex but important area of social policy.
The regulations bring us back to the familiar ground covered when we discussed the statutory maternity, paternity and adoption pay regulations which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, introduced into the House a month ago. As I said then, it is hard to argue—one should not argue—against regulations which encourage better relationships between parents and children; which help parents care better for disabled children; and which encourage a good life/ work balance. It was not entirely clear from the paperwork and I was pleased that the Minister confirmed that these regulations will apply to adopted and foster children as well.
It may be hard, particularly at this season of the year, but one has to say that these desirable objectives come with costs attached, both direct financial costs and through an impact on competitiveness.
The regulatory impact assessment estimates one-off start up costs of £34 million, of which about 80 per cent, nearly £28 million, will be borne by businesses with fewer than 20 employees. The calculation is based on one person per business spending one hour to become familiar with the legislation and then implementing it. I came cold to this legislation, and I must say you would need to be jolly good to read, assess and implement it after reading it for one hour. The regulatory impact assessment of one hour per firm is low; I calculate it is out by a factor of two or three.
As to complexity, the regulations will come into force in April, as will maternity and parental leave regulations and statutory paternity and adoption pay regulations. Firms will be kept busy getting to grips with the regulations, which cover entirely new areas. To make this tolerable, good guidance will need to be made available early and well in advance of the impact day. In the various discussions we have had during the passage of legislation through the House—most recently on the Licensing Bill—the guidance and regulations have not always been produced in as timely a fashion as one might wish.
To be useful, particularly to smaller firms, the guidance will need to be detailed, with works examples, templates and forms for all aspects of the process.
In particular, I wonder whether the Minister would consider the advantage of an approach requiring that, for an application to be valid under the regulations, it should have to be made on a statutory form. This would ensure that all the relevant information was
858
properly detailed at the first stage of the process. While "best practice" could offer a steer to employees and employers in providing the relevant information, unless the use of a form is mandatory, there is a greater risk of the employee overlooking some of the required information and therefore submitting an invalid application. This would create a "false start" to the process, which is undesirable for both parties. The use of a statutory form would also give employers a clear signal that the request is being made under the legal right to request flexible working and that they are obliged to take appropriate steps without delay. This approach is widely espoused by the Engineering Employers' Federation. I hope that the Minister will consider it sympathetically.
Secondly, in the guidance notes there needs to be a good explanation of what amounts to a "sufficient" explanation for refusal in Regulation 5(b)(ii). We have some doubts as to whether it is right to leave this definition, which is central to the objective of the legislation, to guidance. There is an argument for including it in the regulation. Some comments from the Minister when he replies would be most welcome.
Perhaps I may give a "nitty-gritty" example. A firm of, say, 150 employees might have a human resources department of three people, two of whom might be eligible for flexible working, having young children. One of two makes an application for flexible working arrangements permitting him or her to take Friday afternoons off in pursuance of the objective of this legislation. The second eligible member of staff, seeing the success of this agreement, asks for the same Friday arrangements. Will it be "sufficient explanation" that the firm does not wish to have its HR department denuded of resources at that time?
Or alternatively, a person joins the firm who has a child under six, making him or her eligible for flexible working. At no time during the recruitment process is any mention made of a wish for flexible working. How soon after joining, without any change in personal circumstances—clearly if an employee is going to have a baby, that is another matter—can a person then request a flexible working arrangement?
I do not worry so much about this provision in the case of large firms, which have cover available; or even in the case of micro-firms, where flexible working is almost always a way of life. It is the medium-sized firms that will be hit hardest by these regulations. They will be struggling with the problems of growth, and we need to give them all the help and encouragement that we can.
The Minister has heard me talk about the desirability of this country encouraging the emergence of world-class companies—and I mean world-class, not national champions, before he chides me again on the point. These potential world-class competitors need simple, clear guidance so that they can focus their attention on their economic success, to their benefit and to that of the country.

859
Will the Minister comment on the unfortunate cases where people, sadly, take advantage of the regulations? If, for example, a person who has made a flexible working arrangement is found to have taken a second job during the period in which he or she is enjoying flexible working, would that he grounds for dismissal?
Finally, as I understand it from the debate in another place, the Government plan to review the situation and have specified three measures of success: increased incidence of flexible working; increased employment of parents with young children; and increased satisfaction with the work/life balance—the last is particularly hard to measure. Does the Minister agree that these are slightly narrow and that they do not sufficiently reflect genuine concerns among firms as to the real, as opposed to expected, costs of the regulations?
Therefore, will the Minister make a special study of the impact of the regulations on firms of, say, five to 200 employees? Will he review the number and percentage of cases going to industrial tribunals to see whether the regulatory impact assessment predictions are correct? Will he open a dedicated channel through which firms could report problems with the implementation of the regulations? In answer to recent Questions in the House, the Minister placed stress on the importance of the DTI Strategy Unit and the valuable role it plays. Perhaps he could undertake to follow up the impact of the regulations.
As I explained in my opening remarks, we do not oppose the regulations, for they are well intentioned. But they must be seen in the context of the fact that they are one more burden to add to the parental leave directive, the works council directive, the part-time work directive, the directive on the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases and the fixed term employee directive; to say nothing of the impending agency workers directive.
As the Minister knows as well as anybody, the world does not owe this country a living; therefore, we must keep a careful eye on the balance being struck.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the regulations, which we see as a consequence of the Employment Act 2002. We in your Lordships' House, in particular, ought to welcome them because the House is probably the ultimate example of flexible working. We should, therefore, have an interest in welcoming the extension of the benefits we enjoy to others. I hope that the Minister will accept in the spirit of the present season that it is surprising, given the interest that some of his noble friends paid to these matters when the Employment Act 2002 was in Grand Committee and on Report, that they are not here today to welcome the implementation of the proposals. I am sure that they have other important matters to ensure that on this occasion they are a good example of flexible working.
The regulations seem to be a well balanced example of the implementation of something that the House has already decided should be carried out. Of course,
860
as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, pointed out, there will be costs. As he said, it is important that they be monitored, and, if there are problems, the department should try to rectify them. We believe that this is an important step forward and welcome the regulations.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, there are costs, but there are also very considerable benefits, some of which it is difficult to quantify in terms of reductions in recruitment costs, improvements in the labour supply, or employees' work satisfaction. We must see that there are considerable benefits, as I hope I illustrated in my opening remarks.
As regards the ability of companies to deal with the regulations, the law that the regulations implement has been known about for a long time. There is still plenty of time for businesses to come to terms with them. We are currently testing the guidance with employers.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The problem is the detail, not the law. The regulations come into force in April, which is 16 weeks from the end of Christmas. Is that fair? It is not a long lime for a smaller business, particularly if we do not yet have the detail. I understand the law; it is the detail that counts.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I very much accept that. Obviously, it is the law that counts. We have been consulting on these regulations, so at this stage they are well known about by those who wish to find out about them. As the noble Lord will know, many businesses leave it until a short period before the legislation comes into force before they take the trouble to look for it. We are currently testing the guidance with employers and the Employers Federation, including advice on sufficient explanations. A set of forms will accompany the guidance to help employers, so we will cover the point that the noble Lord raised.
When we review the legislation in three years, we will look at all the issues that the noble Lord mentioned, including the need for people to go to tribunals. I think that will be done, not by the Strategy Unit or the DTI, but by specialists in such legislation.
I accept that the House of Lords should welcome this as an example of flexible working, although sometimes the flexibility is not as obvious for Ministers as it should be. I do not think that we shall be able to apply for change of hours under this legislation.
I thank noble Lords for their support of the regulations. They have been drafted very carefully, with small businesses in mind. We have tested the regulations with them as we have gone along. I think they will find the end result relatively easy to deal with. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies (Fees) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2002
4.21 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations will apply to England and Wales and Scotland, but not to Northern Ireland which has its own company registry and sets its own fees. The order was debated and approved on 4th December by the standing committee on delegated legislation in another place.
The effect of the regulations, which are mainly required for technical legal reasons, is to repeal the statutory fees for microfiche-based services produced by Companies House.
Companies House, an executive agency of the DTI with trading fund status, has successfully achieved the Government's modernising agenda of providing access to basic company information electronically. Falling demand and the take-up of electronic search services have rendered microfiche products uneconomic to produce. The number of microfiche-based searches has fallen from 2 million in 1995–96 to an estimated 250,000 by the end of this year—a fall of 90 per cent in seven years. This has occurred in parallel with Companies House developing and delivering its electronic search services to meet customer demand. All customers can now obtain electronic company information in convenient ways that suit their needs.
I told the House on 11th March this year that Companies House was looking to shift from microfiche services to electronic services to satisfy demand for basic company information by the end of this year as a consequence of the fall in demand. Companies House is now at this point. The organisation will stop updating microfiche-based company records on 31st December 2002. However, the frozen microfiche will still be available to searchers as an archive product.
To provide its electronic service, Companies House has scanned all the documents it has received since April 1995 to give a comprehensive company record. It also has a programme to capture images from older microfiche for the more commonly searched companies and has the ability to scan any other document held on microfiche and deliver it electronically.
However, we recognise that a few customers will not have access to appropriate computer equipment to receive and view electronic images of company information. The regulations cater for this by setting a statutory fee for a postal, paper-based document information service to complement electronic information delivery services. This service is not new but replaces the previous statutory paper-based service that was set when microfiche was the primary source of company information.
If Companies House were to retain the existing microfiche services, it is estimated that the cost of the basic product would have to increase to a prohibitive
862
£20. This is because the costs of producing microfiche are large, with insignificant variable costs. Therefore volumes of searches significantly influence unit costs. I believe that such a high price would be unacceptable even to those who traditionally use microfiche.
Companies House has put considerable effort into informing customers about this change to its services. Since the beginning of the year it has undertaken a communications campaign, including advertisements in the national press and relevant trade publications, direct mailing to all known microfiche customers and leaflets in Companies House information centres. The campaign also includes information posted online on the Companies House website and the Companies House Direct service. Companies House has also managed to re-deploy all its staff involved in the production of microfiche.
The Companies House Executive Agency remains a key statutory registry with an enormously important role in company information provision. In October 2000, the agency's website was launched with a capability of delivering information anywhere in the world at the touch of a button. This can only be to the benefit of the British economy as a whole.
I confirm that these regulations conform to the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope that my explanation has been helpful. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches are grateful to the Minister for having explained a complex subject most clearly. We accept what appear to be the two key conclusions of these regulations; namely, that microfilming will end with effect from the 31st December next. We have to accept that microfilm is yesterday's technology, and that there is a lower demand for it. Secondly, we accept that Companies House must earn a return on its activities, but as its return last year was 9 per cent as opposed to a target of 6 per cent. I have a question to which I shall return shortly. However, we accept that there has to be an increase in the fees chargeable.
I should like raise a few points with the Minister. Under the new regime, can the noble Lord say whether the public will still be able to access microfilm directly'? Alternatively, will people be able to obtain a printed copy only via the postal service? I ask that question because deterioration can occur in the quality of such material when photocopies are made. In my experience, it is all too often the case that the piece that one most wants to read is the one that has faded to invisibility. I have in mind notes to accounts where the print is quite small, which means that you cannot actually read it when you receive the printed copy through the post. I should like to know whether people can obtain direct access to the microfiche.
I turn to the position in Northern Ireland, which, as the Minister said, is not covered by these regulations. Are the fees charged comparable with those of the

863
Companies Registry in London? Further, can people gain access to Companies House via Belfast? If that is possible, presumably there is an opportunity for arbitrage in terms of the examination of records.
With regard to the rate of return being 9 per cent. I noted in the debate in another place that Ms Melanie Johnson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition, Consumers and Markets, said that the excess over the target—that is to say, 3 per cent in excess of 6 per cent—was due to a higher than expected level of company registrations. I presume that that condition will no longer persist with the tighter economic conditions around the country. If the return remains above the target of 6 per cent. will the Minister bring forward reductions in order to reduce it to the target level of return?
Finally, I have a slightly wider question, but one which has perhaps assumed a greater relevance and importance as we move to an entirely electronically-based system of data retention. The noble Lord will know from debates in the House, and from his commercial experience, that boards of directors are increasingly being asked to focus on the key risks faced by their businesses; indeed, under the new combined code, they are required to do so. Key among those risks are those classified as "interruption of business"—fire, flood, loss of power supply, and the corruption of electronic records.
Companies address those risks by what is normally called a "disaster recovery programme", which inter cilia requires: first, duplication of records, one copy of which is then held off site; secondly, alternative facilities, which the staff can use to provide at least a skeleton or nominal service until normal business can be resumed; and, thirdly, a plan for who does what and when if disaster strikes.
Companies House is a key part of our market-based system, on which I know the Minister is keen—I heard him espouse it during the Committee stage debate on the Enterprise Act 2002. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could let us know a little more about the disaster recovery programme, and the precautions that are being taken at Companies House in this time of political uncertainty. Subject to satisfactory replies on the points that I have raised, noble Lords on these Benches are happy with these regulations as made.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I welcome the regulations. First, however, I must declare a personal if not a financial interest: I hate microfiche. I think that it is the most difficult and disagreeable way of accessing data, and I have always found it very difficult to manipulate. The move to electronic data which will be much more accessible is therefore a step in the right direction.
I pursue the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about the specific fees in the regulations and the return on the activities of Companies House. Companies House should of course cover its costs; I think that all noble Lords will agree that that is the right principle. However, how
864
often are the fees reviewed to ensure that the return on the facility is not excessive? Companies House provides an extremely useful facility to the whole of society, but it would be wrong for the Government to take a higher than expected return. We need an assurance that the fees are occasionally reviewed to ensure that excess profits are not being generated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of the regulations, and I shall seek to answer the questions directly. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked whether microfiche will continue to be available directly. Yes, it will. He asked about the fees for the Companies Registry in Northern Ireland. I am afraid that we do not have information on that as it is a separate registry. That is what devolution means.
The noble Lord asked about the 9 per cent return as against the target of 6 per cent. The 9 per cent figure arose because there was an exceptionally large number of company registrations in that period. Contrary to what he expects, there continues to be a large number of company registrations. Therefore, if we did not take any action at all, there would probably be a higher rate of return than the target. However, we have the flexibility administratively to vary a number of the fees.
The fact that this is an affirmative resolution is a nonsense. I should not be taking up the time of the House today. It arose from a time when we were insufficiently aware of the value of the time of the House and the undesirability of having continuing amendments. I can reassure the noble Lord on that point, however, because the House of Commons committee on statutory instruments queried whether it was right for us to be doing this in this piecemeal way. In response, we have undertaken to prepare a consolidation order which will bring all of the changes into effect. However, some of the fees still require statutory approval. That is a matter which can be addressed in companies legislation in the longer term.
The noble Lord asked me about a disaster recovery programme. Companies House has a comprehensive disaster recovery programme and has recently undertaken considerable risk management assessment. I am sure that that means that there is adequate backup for the circumstances with which he is concerned.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roper. Having run a business information company for a number of years and having to use microfiche myself, I hate microfiche: I hate searching, I hate the heat, and I hate the spiky metal on them. I do not want to see a microfiche reader again. However, he can rest assured that those who insist on microfiche can have it. There are microfiche readers in all of the Companies House public offices. It has been noticed, however, that they are very much less used than they were in the past.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Removal of 20 Member Limit in Partnerships etc.) Order 2002
4.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 24th October, Session 2001–02, be approved [29th Report, Session 2001–02, from the Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first order from the Department of Trade and Industry to be brought forward under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. The order is designed to remove the 20 member limit which at present applies, with some exceptions, to partnerships, limited partnerships, unregistered companies and associations, formed for the purpose of gain.
The impetus for the order came from recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission that the 20 partner limit for partnerships be abolished. The 20 member limit was enacted in the 19th century in response to a problem of the day and reflected the business and legal environments at that time. The limit was intended to prevent abuses by certain deed of settlement companies which were common in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The membership of a deed of settlement company could be large and could change often. To sue a deed of settlement company under common law, the aggrieved party had to be able to name all the shareholders. This was exploited by the unscrupulous who set out to defraud the public. By constructing a large partnership with a fluctuating membership, they made it virtually impossible for an aggrieved party to sue. This difficulty was the basis for the size restriction that was first introduced in the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844.
Following the fusion of equity and common law in 1873, aggrieved parties could sue partnerships in England and Wales in the firm's name. They no longer had to be able to name all the members. The situation is slightly less straightforward in Scotland, however— the differences would not cause procedural differences for the plaintiff.
My department consulted extensively on this proposal. It received overwhelming support. Respondents agreed that, although specific exemptions can be made to the 20 member limit (and a large number have been made over the years), it does impose burdens. It prevents the expansion of business through the introduction of new partners, restricts the development of multidisciplinary and international partnerships, restricts the use of joint ventures, especially in the private equity and property sectors, and imposes legal complexity and administrative costs.
This order will increase the freedom of businesses to organise in the way most appropriate to their circumstances, facilitate the introduction of new partners and the development of multidisciplinary partnerships, result in cost savings to business and remove the need for increasingly complex applications for exemption.
866
The committee concluded that the proposal to remove the 20 member limit removed a burden within the meaning of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 and did not create a new burden. The department also demonstrated to the satisfaction of the committee that the proposal will neither confound any reasonable expectations nor reduce any necessary protection. I thank members of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform for the time they spent scrutinising the proposal and for recommending the proposal to the House.
The committee in the other place also considered that the proposal removed a legal burden from members of partnerships, and those wishing to enter into partnership arrangements, and agreed that it was not necessary to replace the limit with any other protections. I confirm that the regulations conform with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 24th October, Session 2001–02, be approved [29th Report, Session 2001–02, from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, once again I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. Before I make my remarks I have an interest to declare as I have been, and at this moment remain, a limited partner in at least three parallel partnerships of the sort described in the briefing. I have therefore seen at first hand the administrative complexities as well as the need to use offshore vehicles and other cost ineffective devices which the old regulations impose. It seems to me, therefore, extremely welcome that we should be considering their removal.
The Minister mentioned the private equity industry which has been greatly affected by the 20 partner limit. The private equity industry in the UK has been a great success. It has assisted in the development of the entrepreneurial culture in the country and added yet another area of expertise to the formidable range already available in the City of London.
I wish to raise three small points. First, does the deregulation apply to Northern Ireland? I think not. If not, why not? Secondly, if and when the order goes through what is the position of parallel partnerships? Are they permissible or impermissible?
Thirdly, I have a familiar moan about the density and incomprehensibility of the parentage of the legislation. The notes to page 2 of the regulation state that the regulations have as their parent the Companies Act 1985, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the Banking Act 1979 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That makes the legislation extraordinarily dense and difficult to understand and, although I do not know how, I hope that we can find a way to make it more comprehensible to the man or woman in the street.
I accept the point that has been made that it is possible to construct scenarios in which people with malice aforethought could seek to take advantage of

867
the change. However, I have heard of no evidence that such schemes could not have been introduced under the old parallel partnership route but were not. I see no reason why that should be different in future. This is a deregulatory measure that will cut costs and increase the United Kingdom's competitiveness, and we therefore support it.
As this is the last of the orders and I have kept noble Lords here for the best part of an hour, I take the opportunity to wish happy Christmas to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who I see from my grey book I should properly call the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, and to the noble Baroness. Lady Blackstone.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a partner of 30 years' standing and as one who has sued many partnerships on behalf of clients. I would not say that that was a mug's game, but it is the most difficult form of legal suit to entertain and pursue, except perhaps as regards an unincorporated association. I might even have been sued as a partner, but I do not think so.
I broadly welcome the measure. I do not seek to prevent its passage, as that would be fruitless, but I do seek to persuade the Minister and the Government of the need for parallel regulations for public disclosure by the large partnerships that will flourish in the wake of this change. In doing so, I am supporting the representation referred to in the statutory statement prepared by the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to this deregulatory measure. One representation is anonymous and the other is advanced by the well-known firm of solicitors named William Sturges. Both representations were to the effect that, without a measure of public disclosure, the prospects for the sort of anti-social activities that originally gave rise to the limit of 20 partners will be created once again.
I noted the Minister's description of those partnerships. He referred to large partnerships with "fluctuating partners" under the settlement partnerships. I put it to the House that, although the vast majority of partnerships are thoroughly proper, well conducted and many, if not most of them, are professionally regulated, many are not.
Partnerships have always been concentrated in the service area, as they are not suitable vehicles for large asset-carrying and creating entities. In the context of much of today's financial services business, which is extremely fast-moving and global, there are many types of partnership that will be able to be formed in the wake of this measure that will, I fear, try to play fast and loose with the public. I am sure that I do not need to enumerate the many scandals, large and small, that have afflicted the financial services sector in recent times.
The Government should by all means proceed with this deregulating measure, but could they actively review the representations by William Sturges and the anonymous firm? In that way, there could be only a
868
short delay between the coming into effect of the delimited number and the bringing into effect of publicity requirements. At the moment, partners do not need to disclose any of those pieces of information that are necessary for companies. There is no register of directors or of partnerships. They do not need to produce an annual report or to lodge any form of annual accounts or their constitution so that people can see where governance lies. There is no need to specify the executive partners. In fact, anyone seeking redress against a partner is, frankly, up against it if those partners are trying to evade their responsibilities. I say that in the firmest possible way and with a great deal of personal professional experience.
The document produced by the DTI is, dare I say, a bit naïve with regard to the current reality. For example, it suggests that if one does not know the name of the partners, one should ask the solicitor,
"authorised to accept service on behalf of the partnership firm".
The solicitor acting for the partnership firm does not have to accept service; he can simply say, "I am not authorised to accept service". Where is one then? The document goes on to say that "effecting personal service" can be done preparatory to suing,
"by leaving the notice with either a partner or a manager/ controller of the firm at the firm's principal place of business".
If the partnership has gone out of business, it will not have a principal place of business. The problem is to know who the partners are. We come back to the Minister's historic opening remark about fluctuating large partnerships. I fear that a great deal of that sort of thing will go on.
The DTI statement suggests,
"sending or transmitting a copy of the notice to … a partner's usual or last known address".
The problem is that we may not know the partners. One cannot get at the personal assets of a partner if one does not know who the partner is or where he lives. This is a simple but important point.
All noble Lords would deplore any misuse of this development for improper purposes. I therefore hope that the Government will accept that we should introduce regulations that more nearly equate the public disclosure responsibilities for companies with those for large partnerships. I suggest that those publicity requirements should be confined to partnerships of more than 20. Subject to that, I welcome the order.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I join my noble friend on the Front Bench in welcoming this broadly deregulatory measure. I also acknowledge that he appreciated the existence of the separate legal persona of a partnership in Scotland. Many of the difficulties that have been set out probably do not exist north of the Border. There may be problems with ever-larger partnerships south of the Border. I have never seen any magic in the figure of 20 but something of an issue may arise if partnerships are allowed to expand indefinitely.

869
I hope that, in the wake of a welcome deregulatory measure, we do not find ourselves subsequently encumbered with too many requirements about the increased size of a partnership, which would transform the order from a deregulatory measure to one that would impose greater burdens on those who were in a position to decide that they wanted to increase their partnership in a natural manner from more than 20 to 22, 24, 26 or whatever the figure may be. I understand that there might be some cause for concern about a really large partnership.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I add to my earlier comments one quick point on which I hope the Minister will reflect. The key statement that I cannot understand in the DTI statement—a formal statement under the deregulation legislation—is in paragraph 3. It states:
"The Committee considered that, by removing the 20 member limit, the proposal would remove the legal burden from members of partnerships".
I do not believe that it will remove any burden at all. Perhaps the Minister will explain that. It may dilute the personal liability of partners under partnerships but that is not remotely the same as removing them. Indeed, as partnerships get bigger, the liabilities will tend to grow proportionately.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and have welcomed these regulations. I shall try to deal in turn with the points raised. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked whether the regulations applied to Northern Ireland. They do not. This is a devolved matter and Northern Ireland has separate companies legislation. He also asked me about parallel partnerships. As I understand it, parallel partnerships were a device to get round the limitation to 20 members and, therefore, there will no longer be a reason for them.
The noble Lord said that the originating legislation was dense and incomprehensible. Indeed, it was. That is why for a number of years we have undertaken a comprehensive review of companies legislation. As the noble Lord will be aware, in the summer we published a draft companies Bill. When it arrived on my desk, being of the order of 10 centimetres thick, I immediately sent it back again. I said that, when the consultation was complete, I would take delivery of a copy but that I had no intention of looking at it at that time.
The intention of the exercise, with the support of the Law Commission, is that we should revise all that.
870
That will not necessarily cover the noble Lord's point about the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, but it is a very minor point so far as concerns these regulations.
The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, are wide-ranging and concern the whole issue of registration and disclosure requirements. I do not complain about that. I can see that, if there is no limit on the numbers, then the argument for disclosure is different. However, this was a matter of very detailed consultation, and my understanding is that the substantial majority of respondents opposed setting up a register of partnerships. I also understand that the Law Commission report will not recommend such a register. Of course, once the Law Commission publishes its report, there will be further consultation and the Government will consider all the views, including those of the people who disagreed with the overwhelming majority.
The noble Lord talked about fluctuating partners and deed of settlement companies, but that was during the 18th and 19th centuries before the passage of the 1844 Act. The ability to sue the firm is the key element here. That applies now to partnerships. One does not have to identify all the partnerships in order to sue the firm. One can sue them at their place of business. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, rightly said, that does not help if they have gone out of business. But protection against those who have gone out of business is hardly affected by the number of partners.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. The fact that one can sue a partnership as a firm does not help one to get at the personal assets that are needed to satisfy one's claim. That is the problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it depends on the constitution of the partnership. However, surely in most cases the partners are jointly and severally liable. But, again, I suggest that this goes beyond the issue of 20 members and, therefore, beyond this set of regulations. The Law Commission is considering the issue of partnerships as legal entities as part of its reform of partnership law. The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, can certainly be made in that respect.
He also asked me to comment on a statement by the committee. The Government are not responsible for what the committee says. I do not have the information in front of me, but I assume that he means the committee of the other place or of this House that was considering the regulations. We are not responsible for what such a committee says.
In terms of protection for investors, the interest in partnerships is regulated. Unlimited and limited partnerships are classed as unauthorised collective

871
investment schemes and are subject to the financial promotion rule in Section 238 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. That means that they can be sold only to sophisticated investors who are well able to look after their own interests.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, reasonably said that if we get the matter wrong there will be problems in the future and the net effect will not
872
be deregulatory. That is why we are undertaking a review of company law and why we have published a draft companies Bill. There will also be an opportunity for representations to be made to ensure that that does not take place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at four minutes before five o'clock until 7th January next.

  Cluan Place/Clandeboye Interface
  Cluan Place/Clandeboye Interface
  IRA Ceasefire
  IRA Ceasefire
  Bills and Acts of Parliament: Format
  Bills and Acts of Parliament: Format
  Northern Ireland: Palliative Care
  Northern Ireland: Palliative Care
  Houses of Parliament Visitor Centre
  Houses of Parliament Visitor Centre
  Fire Dispute: Attorney-General
  Fire Dispute: Attorney-General
  Turkey: EU Accession Negotiations
  Turkey: EU Accession Negotiations
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  China: North Korean Refugees
  China: North Korean Refugees
  President Al-Assad of Syria: Visit to UK
  President Al-Assad of Syria: Visit to UK
  International Centre for Prison Studies: Dissemination of Handbook for Prison Staff
  International Centre for Prison Studies: Dissemination of Handbook for Prison Staff
  Middle East
  Middle East
  EU: Consolidated Treaties Publication
  EU: Consolidated Treaties Publication
  Christopher Pasipamire: Visa
  Christopher Pasipamire: Visa
  Lockerbie Disaster
  Lockerbie Disaster
  NATO Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
  NATO Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
  UK and EU Sanctions
  UK and EU Sanctions
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Parliamentary Written Answers: Reference to Webpages
  Parliamentary Written Answers: Reference to Webpages
  EU Transport Council, 5–6 December
  EU Transport Council, 5–6 December
  Electoral Modernisation Pilots
  Electoral Modernisation Pilots
  Emergency Fire Cover
  Emergency Fire Cover
  Fire Services Act 1947: Section 19
  Fire Services Act 1947: Section 19
  Racially Motivated Offenders: Behavioural Programmes
  Racially Motivated Offenders: Behavioural Programmes
  Prisons: Operational Capacity and Staff Numbers
  Prisons: Operational Capacity and Staff Numbers
  Meteorological Office
  Meteorological Office
  Stem Cell Research
  Stem Cell Research
  Rural Sub-Post Offices
  Rural Sub-Post Offices
  NHS Provision of Digital Hearing Aids: Lancashire
  NHS Provision of Digital Hearing Aids: Lancashire
  Pathology Modernisation Programme
  Pathology Modernisation Programme
  Public Health Laboratories
  Public Health Laboratories
  Pathology Services: Strategic Review
  Pathology Services: Strategic Review
  Misuse: Alcohol
  Misuse: Alcohol
  HFEA: Licences
  HFEA: Licences
  Blood Donors: vCJD
  Blood Donors: vCJD
  Health Visitors
  Health Visitors
  NHS Trusts: Retained Deficit
  NHS Trusts: Retained Deficit
  Health Protection Agency
  Health Protection Agency
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Branded Medicines
  Branded Medicines
  NHS Franchising Register of Expertise
  NHS Franchising Register of Expertise
  International Phonetic Alphabet
  International Phonetic Alphabet
  Recycling
  Recycling
  Sport and Physical Activity: DCMS/Strategy Unit Report
  Sport and Physical Activity: DCMS/Strategy Unit Report
  Video-on-Demand Industry: Self-Regulation
  Video-on-Demand Industry: Self-Regulation
  UK Youth Parliament Manifesto and Agenda for Action 2000
  UK Youth Parliament Manifesto and Agenda for Action 2000
  Local Delivery of Central Policy: Better Regulation Task Force Report
  Local Delivery of Central Policy: Better Regulation Task Force Report
  Public Sector Workers: London Weighting Allowances
  Public Sector Workers: London Weighting Allowances
  Euro: Transfer of Powers and Prerogatives
  Euro: Transfer of Powers and Prerogatives
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Financial Services Authority
  Financial Services Authority